In case anyone missed the heavy coverage of it, the billboard near the Burrard Bridge is up. (I was first alerted to this by Councillor Suzanne Anton yesterday, who gasped in dismay or surprise or something on the phone while talking with me when she first saw it.)
Link to one of the many stories (but best pix) here.
52 responses so far ↓
1 Denis // Dec 3, 2009 at 7:58 pm
The Indians don’t own the land as they can only hold locatee tickets of possession of the land. The guy to holler at if you don’t like the signs is the Federal Minister of Indian and Norhtern affairs as the land is federal land set aside for Indians. with Chuck do anything for you? not a chance
2 Sean // Dec 3, 2009 at 8:17 pm
The things this city puts up with in the name of political correctness.
3 FBT // Dec 3, 2009 at 8:33 pm
What natives have never quite understood was that to go forward in any process there has to be a mutual respect of each others’ interests.
As they demand respect from the white man, not once have they ever given it back. This is a very typical example and is not about the money at all.
The billboards are an “f-you”, plain and simple.
4 Joe Just Joe // Dec 3, 2009 at 10:38 pm
I hate to see Race get thrown into this debate. It should be about the damn billboards. Doesn’t matter who put them up, they don’t belong there. I will make a purposeful attempt at boycotting any product displayed on them, hope others join me.
5 Big Eagle // Dec 3, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Love how the Natives hold themselves as “custodians” of the land. Such bullshit.
6 SV // Dec 3, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Lot of foot-stomping going on here.
7 Westender // Dec 3, 2009 at 10:51 pm
I agree with Joe Just Joe…but I think it’s important to ensure we let the advertisers know we are not partaking of their offerings.
8 amazed // Dec 3, 2009 at 11:15 pm
vancouver needs to ditch the luddite attitude. we need many more bike posts for locking and there is zero reason they cannot have small ads on them.
Ridiculous. Hopefully with the maturing city this crazy marxist-inspired no fun nonsense can end – just look at Cadman’s completely out of touch and evidence-less statements on MMA.
9 gmgw // Dec 3, 2009 at 11:29 pm
amazed:
It’s obvious you must make your living from the advertising biz–can’t think of any other industry that produces people crazy enough to consider the placing of advertising on every available square inch of public space to be “fun”. As for the “fun” aspects of employing steroidal goons to beat each other bloody for the entertainment of audiences composed of degenerate, bellowing knuckle-draggers, I’ll leave it for you to try to explain. If holding attitudes like yours in utter contempt makes me a Marxist, just call me Fidel.
gmgw
10 Hoarse Whisperer // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:08 am
Amen, gmgw.
11 Bill Smolick // Dec 4, 2009 at 7:54 am
Wayne Hunter (who claims to be organizing a boycot) is full of sound and fury but signifies nothing.
Haven’t seen them yet but I already dislike the signs. The over-saturation of our world with advertising is not a good thing.
12 Todd Sieling // Dec 4, 2009 at 8:45 am
The signs are ugly and put money before community, period.
But that’s the lesson we learn from kneeling to real estate developers and VANOC, isn’t it? Squamish FN are just following the lead of those around them, and they get beaten up for it because they used leverage that they have.
Special to Sean: you’ve got to be kidding me. People in Vancouver have had to live in a rolling construction zone for 3 years to get ready for the Olympics. I’d say everyone’s put up with a lot more than some crass advertising. And as far as it being political correctness, in true Conservative Party Operative-speak, they’re using the law to get what they want. In the end, this is consumer culture being reflected back at itself, so suck it up and leave race out of it.
13 Mark Allerton // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:25 am
I’m not in favour of the billboards, but I somewhat admire the FN’s chutzpah in going through with this. They are for better or worse acting within their rights.
As for leaving race out of the debate… good luck with that.
14 June // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:11 am
Yep, people love us Aboriginal peoples when we’re being “cultural” but when we press our rights-look out!
15 Blaffergassted // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:18 am
Billboards in lieu of salmon!
http://www.falsecreekwatershed.org/pdfs/BrauerMap01.pdf
16 IanS // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:54 am
Seems like a lot of fuss over very little. If the signage is otherwise legal, I can’t see what the problem is.
17 Chris Keam // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:29 pm
If you’ve ever willingly put on a shirt with the ‘swoosh, or any other logo on it, any complaint over a billboard smacks of hypocrisy when you are willing to let your own body become a walking advert IMO. Anyway, if you’re a good driver you’ll be paying attention to traffic not the air above it. So, no worries. I guess the cyclists and pedestrians will just have to suck it up however.
18 Larry Manetti // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I get a kick out of folks that have an outdated and quaint i.e. racist view of aboriginal peoples and their uses of resources. As ownership enshrines the rights and ability to exploit as the owner sees fit (within the confines of the greater law, not by-law), why do Vancouverites cling to the ridiculous idea that aboriginal people should be paddling around rivers catching fish by hand, selectively logging, taking ‘stewardship’ etc.? Aboriginal people are living in this society and are entitled to maximize profits just like everyone else does. That’s what our Courts say anyway, and I say more power to them. Why we think our precious ‘view corridors’ and other city-mandated diktats can trump the 100 year old struggle of aboriginal people in our various Courts is beyond me.
19 grounded // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:48 pm
It’s interesting that there’s no apparent opposition to entire Skytrain cars and buses wrapped in advertising. It’s similarly interesting that there’s no apparent opposition to entire buildings wrapped in advertising to promote products in the name of the Olympics. But when a single billboard goes up all of a sudden people are opposed to advertising? Something stinks in here.
20 gmgw // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Prefatory note to Chris Keam: I have long made a point of wearing no (visible) corporate logos anywhere on my person. It’s not easy to find sweatpants, for instance, that are plain and unadorned with giant graphics, but they’re out there. If Nike or any other corporation wants me to act as a walking billboard for them, they can damn well pay me (handsomely, please) for the service. So may I now go ahead and comment on the billboards? Thank you.
An aspect of this controversy I really do not understand is the Squamish Nation’s claim that they are erecting billboards out of financial necessity. This playing of the impoverished-Indian-reserve card simply doesn’t wash. The Capilano reserve has long been among the wealthiest First Nations reserves in Canada (it may even be *the* wealthiest). Its wealth lies in its land holdings. Park Royal was built on land leased from the band. The office tower just across Taylor Way from the east end of Park Royal South was a Squamish Band development. The large RV park by the north end of the Lions Gate Bridge was one of the bands first commercial ventures. They own the land on which the International Plaza complex (if that’s still its name) at Capilano Road and Marine Drive was built in the mid-70s. They lease the foreshore lands to the bulk terminals, like Vancouver Wharves, that can be seen from Stanley Park– yes, those big piles of sulphur sit on reserve land. Most recently, there has been considerable controversy on the North Shore as the Capilano Band has continued to develop the wooded area to the southwest of Park Royal South, thereby encroaching on Ambleside Park.
Given the gold mine of extraordinarily valuable commercial development leases from which the Capilano Band continues to derive considerable revenue, coupled with their own wealth-generating commercial developments, it’s completely baffling to me how the Capilano Band, and the Squamish Nation in general, can possibly be pleading poverty as a rationale for erecting billboards. Either their business model is disastrously inefficient, or someone’s not telling the whole truth.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that in my distant youth in North Vancouver I attended high school with Gibby Jacob, now the hereditary chief of the Squamish First Nation. He was a fringe member of the crowd I hung with in those days. However I feel about his affinity for billboards (and to put it bluntly, I despise them), it’s good to see that Gibby’s matured from the young slacker he was 40 years ago to the esteemed leader that he is today.
gmgw
21 gmgw // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:18 pm
grounded:
How can you possibly assume that *everyone* is accepting of buildings, buses and Skytrain cars swathed in advertising? I think most sensible people, were they asked for an opinion, would at least express some reservations about this trend. I loathe it myself. But advertisers, building owners and the Coast Mountain Bus Company could not possibly care less about what I or anyone else thinks about this matter; they’re looking only at the bottom line. Barring mass demonstrations in the streets or some other form of large-scale direct action, I think we will continue to see this sort of thing expand to the point where it’s impossible to look anywhere in any large city on the planet without seeing something pushing some kind of consumer goods down your throat, urging us all to *Consume!*. I’ve been dreading the day I walk into my first elevator that plays commercials on a video monitor to its captive audience (a pernicious innovation that’s been slowly spreading– like a disease– for years). But you’ve got to pick your battles, and sadly, I think that for those of us who object to this trend and see it as emblematic of the massive degradation and deterioration of our culture, this battle was lost before it even started. I think that most people nowadays are simply too jaded, beaten down and otherwise apathetic to object to the billboards or anything else that may offend them, but doesn’t threaten their way of living in any direct way. More’s the pity.
gmgw
22 grounded // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:36 pm
gmgw:
Thanks for your comment. I didn’t assume that *everyone* is accepting of advertising on buildings, buses, etc. I just find it hypocritical and disturbing that the Burrard Bridge billboard elicits such opposition when we see no comparable attention in the media or on this blog of the intrusions of advertising into our lives generally. It suggests something more insidious than simply opposition to advertising.
23 Bill Bored // Dec 4, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Great comments gmgw.
I am reminded of the lengthy legal battle fought by the City to remove the large billboard on the top of the Lee Building on the corner of Main and Broadway. It went all the way to the Court of Appeal and must have cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. Meanwhile, the residents of the Lee, I understand, had been using the profits to maintain their beautiful historic building and support community arts programs. In the end, the residents, many of whom are members of the arts community themselves had to come up with $100,000 to remove the billboard.
Our civic rejection of that billboard, which, frankly, didn’t bother me much on account of its uniqueness and historic significance, is difficult to reconcile with the construction of a new, flashier electronic billboards beside the Burrard Bridge.
I am also reminded that Vancouver used to be awash in billboards – far more than we see today (see Fred Herzog’s famous images from the 1950′s). Apparently, most of these billboards were phased out through public pressure and discontent – not through bylaws, which contained grandfather clauses permitting the existing signs to stay up.
So let’s keep the pressure up. Gmgw is right, we’re generally a bunch of apathetic layabouts when it comes to these issues.
24 Urbanismo // Dec 4, 2009 at 4:26 pm
FTB . . . “What natives have never quite understood was that to go forward in any process there has to be a mutual respect of each others’ interests.”
Huh: extraordinary lecturing FN’s on “mutual respect.” Some would call you impertinent!
The correct address, btw, is First Nations. “Natives” were the golliwogs we British used to massacre in the name of Queen, Glory and Empiah.
I can understand your fau’par though: that was a longtime ago!
But the issue remains. As far as respect is concerned, the Douglas Treaty on South Vancouver Island is the only cede FN’s made to white man.
Elsewhere in BC white man is trespassing.
As for the LED’s: yes, abominations. But so too many provincial highways; drive the Island highway and bleed.
Massive mind control, in your face Bernays everywhere we turn: telly, movies and god forbid bike stands . . . even defacing Georgia with “art”.
What next?
25 MS // Dec 4, 2009 at 5:50 pm
To the racist Canadians who posted comments like “Indians” and that they need to respect the “white man”: You make me want to cry that there is such hate in this city alone. Its these exact emotions that led to the holocaust. The comments posted on this topic are plain and simple racist. I really hate calling myself Canadian and each and every one of you make me disapppointed to say my nationality. Fuck the white Man! What we need in Canada is real mutilculturalism not this government bullshit that we all love and like each other.
26 Paul // Dec 4, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Let’s be clear here:
Under municipal by-laws, this type of illuminated “superboard” signage is not legally permitted in Vancouver, North Van, or Squamish. This is Native Land however, so these by-laws do not apply; courtesy and goodwill to your neighbour still should however. That is not being practiced here. (Don’t get into the historical tit for tat BS on this either; that’s a crap argument)
These are unsightly, tacky, and totally out of place. If they were put up by someone else, like VANOC perhaps, everyone crying racist in this forum would be firebombing them….or be blogging about firebombing them.
As someone who works in advertising and buys media on outdoor boards, I would NEVER book on these boards. Branding an urban skyline is bad news for any company, especially these days when people are so much more sensitive to the intrusive nature of the medium (see above).
27 SV // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:43 pm
It’s called “fireblogging”.
28 Sean // Dec 5, 2009 at 12:16 pm
If anything, this is reverse racism.
If “whitey” owned the land, he would not be absolved of the responsibility of following civic bylaws w.r.t. advertising.
29 gmgw // Dec 5, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Sean,
I think it’s possible that you’re the first person to use the word “whitey” as an imagined derogatory sobriquet for Caucasians, allegedly used by non-Caucasians, since, oh, I don’t know; about… 1971? How very 60s of you.
Knock it off. Terminology like this just makes you look like an idiot.
gmgw
30 Chris Keam // Dec 5, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Wouldn’t it be very ’70s of Sean?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5smPcN8AoE
31 gmgw // Dec 5, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Chris:
I’ll see you that and raise you this (and Gil Scott-Heron always was kind of retro, anyway):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwmrd_T53E0
gmgw
32 SV // Dec 5, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Wait, you mean if “Whitey” owned the land he’d just let nature be? Thank goodness.
Also, I prefer “Honky” but mostly because I really like geese.
33 Chris Keam // Dec 5, 2009 at 4:37 pm
“If anything, this is reverse racism.
If “whitey” owned the land, he would not be absolved of the responsibility of following civic bylaws w.r.t. advertising.”
There are at least eight other big LED billboards around Metro Vancouver. I think there’s one at the Tsawwassen ferry terminal too, IIRC.
http://www.obn.ca/locations.htm
Next post points out that these new signs will have plenty of company in Illegal Signage-town
34 Chris Keam // Dec 5, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Citycaucus on the 313 billboards in Vancouver.
http://www.citycaucus.com/2009/02/say-bye-bye-to-billboards-in-vancouver
35 jon doe // Dec 5, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Not living in Vancouver at the moment, but judging from the BB photos the billboards seem quite small relative to the five or six lanes of adjacent traffic.
36 A. G. Tsakumis // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:08 pm
The billboards are a disgrace, pure and simple.
As is the manner with which First Nations superiority is practiced and tolerated…
37 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Wow, Urbanismo, I haven’t heard the term “golliwog” since I last listened to the Stranglers’ “Peasant in the Big Shitty”!
I’d take this billboard, or the Lee building’s old one, over the big screens downtown any day. Those are a truly sickening and unsightly blight on the urban landscape (yet soooo “world class”).
So I’m wondering if Paul the advertising guy (26 above) would have any ethical issues booking a client’s ad on the big screens? Would he advocate fireblogging them? I would hazard to guess the answer is “no”, given that ad men are notoriously fluid when it comes to metaphysical issues. (Oops, was that a derogatory comment against people who work in advertizing? Sry.)
MS, did you really just call everyone ELSE a racist, and then exclaim “Fuck the white man!”? Really?
38 Paul // Dec 6, 2009 at 10:31 pm
“So I’m wondering if Paul the advertising guy (26 above) would have any ethical issues booking a client’s ad on the big screens? Would he advocate fireblogging them? I would hazard to guess the answer is “no”, given that ad men are notoriously fluid when it comes to metaphysical issues. (Oops, was that a derogatory comment against people who work in advertizing? Sry.)”
*sigh* Yes, it was. But it’s so easy and fun, right? And really funny! No, wait, not that one.
I would neither recommend a spend on any of the LED boards in DT Van nor, on client side, approve the purchase of this space for the following reasons:
1. I don’t feel that at street level, viewing of these boards is optimal (Robson and Granville and BC Place) for either moving vehicles or pedestrians. They’re not good value.
2. Repeat impressions of the boards are seen mainly by the people living in buildings nearby. The flickering light pouring into their living rooms and bedrooms night after night will not help you to sell anything to those who see them the most.
3. To quote a little known but super funny awesome local humourist: “Those are a truly sickening and unsightly blight on the urban landscape.” I completely agree.
So, yeah I do have ethical issues booking these boards. I would not do it for myself or for my clients. There are many other places to put that kind of money that would be far more productive. Most media buyers are taking a wait and see attitude with this so I hope that people speak with their loudest voice and make a point of not buying what is sold on these boards when paid ads goes up. This will encourage the rest of the industry to stay away from these overly intrusive media.
Here’s a question for you GJG: How is the Burrard Bridge Billboard NOT “a truly sickening and unsightly blight on the urban landscape”? It’s brighter and more than twice the size of any of the other LED boards in Vancouver (and double-sided!).
I hear Ghosts are “notoriously fluid” with metaphysical issues anyway, so I’m not really surprised.
(That wasn’t funny either.)
39 Otis Krayola // Dec 6, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Ofay.
Tag. You’re It.
40 Chris Keam // Dec 7, 2009 at 7:37 am
“2. Repeat impressions of the boards are seen mainly by the people living in buildings nearby. The flickering light pouring into their living rooms and bedrooms night after night will not help you to sell anything to those who see them the most.”
My understanding is that the entire TV industry is built on the premise that repeated viewings are effective, whether or not you like the ad or not.
41 Paul // Dec 7, 2009 at 9:02 am
CK,
It’s different: If someone put a TV outside your bedroom window and it lit up your room when you turned out your lights, how would you feel about the products being advertised? You can turn off your TV, you can’t turn these boards off.
42 Chris Keam // Dec 7, 2009 at 9:35 am
I understand it’s different, but that’s irrelevant.
It’s all about eyeballs and imprinting a brand in your mind. This is the same contradiction we hear all the time from the advertising industry.
When they talk to consumers it’s all about personal choices and we’re told that ads only work as a brand preference tool on people wanting to buy. When they talk to the client, all of a sudden advertising is imbued with the power of persuasion and coercion. Advertising works best when it’s ubiquitious and unavoidable.
43 Frank // Dec 7, 2009 at 11:30 am
Perhaps a compromise is possible. How about they take down the billboard if the city takes down the bridge?
44 Paul // Dec 7, 2009 at 11:40 am
Chris,
I don’t know if discussing the nature of advertising is the right thing to be doing on this forum as this is about the Burrard Billboards specifically, but this highlights an important new development in marketing:
Here we are, talking about this issue openly, in real time for everyone to see. Advertisers are more accountable than they ever have been because of the internets. It has changed the way I do business and has made doing the right thing a priority above ubiquity and unavoidability.
These boards take being unavoidable to an unacceptable level. That’s why I think they’re bad news and never should have been planned or built.
45 Chris Keam // Dec 7, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Hi Paul:
The nature of advertising and marketing (creating a positive brand image and urge to buy in the mind of a consumer) is at the heart of the issue IMO, so I don’t think we are off-topic.
My understanding is that there are subtle but important differences between marketing and advertising. The Internet is a great vehicle for marketing (as consumers self-select via their interests and the ad messages follow), maybe not so much for advertising (which is more scattershot in approach)?
As for billboards, most all of them are unavoidable to some extent, and most everybody hates them (to some extent). Yet advertisers continue to utilize the medium. It suggests to me that any backlash over the billboards the Squamish nation is putting up will be short-lived.
After all, most everything we do and see in the modern world could be construed as a branding exercise. The flags over City Hall — branding. The hood badge on an automobile — branding. Being a good neighbour — branding. Graffiti tags — perhaps the ultimate distillation of branding.
Unless we restrict stuff like signage to storefronts and street names, then branding, advertising, and marketing are part of our lives. If free enterprise and free speech are part of the fabric of our country, then restricting advertising messages (to me) flies in the face of our essential beliefs. Whether I like or dislike the message or its delivery system appears to me to be irrelevant. I am free to vote with my dollars, but unless someone could make a compelling health and safety argument against these (or any) billboard, I’d have to say I’m reluctant to restrict anyone’s right to carpetbomb our senses, as much as I would personally revel in an environment with less ads.
46 MB // Dec 9, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Urbanisimo is right.
The Squamish Nation did not cede or treaty-sucker away their traditional territory to anyone, let alone the dominant culture that evolved over only 1/150th of the time they continuously occupied this land, and 1/300th the time it took our dominant society to subjugate and abuse Native culture and confine the population to tiny rag tag remnants their traditional lands.
If this happens to, say, BC today by some ‘foreign power’ it would be called an invasion.
There’s a lot of blather above from various commenters about “respect for your neighbours” and “I lived near a reserve and know one or two Natives therefore my opinion is superior” and Segways into tangential issues like advertising. All without historical context.
We may not like the piles of sulphur and suburban malls at Capilano, but the Squamish did not have a say in the appearance of the conglomeration of streets and buildings call “North Vancouver” and “West Vancouver” in their front yard.
This sign is no different than a wide diversity of large signs proposed and built in the thousands over the last 50 years in Vancouver.
Perhaps there is a difference. The sign is really a mirror that reflects our society back on us. Too bad if you don’t like what you see.
47 A. G. Tsakumis // Dec 9, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Only a the ilk of Keam and his social engineers and cycling fascists would try to defend such a disgraceful eyesore on the city.
This is emblematic of the far-left loons and their excuse-at-any-public-cost attitude(s).
Pathetic, BUT (!) predictable…
48 MS // Dec 9, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Yes, I did reference racist comments. Of course it does not apply to everyone. There are some comments of substance that I have appreciated by Larry Manetti, grounded, and urbanismo. Unfortunately there have been some other insiduous comments that are personally disturbing. Unfortunately I did not provide a comment that substantiated my rage.
There are comments that I find problematic and for those who are educated will be able to easily recognize that:
- As is the manner with which First Nations superiority is practiced and tolerated…
Love how the Natives hold themselves as “custodians” of the land. Such bullshit.
- What natives have never quite understood was that to go forward in any process there has to be a mutual respect of each others’ interests.
49 A. G. Tsakumis // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:30 am
Does MS stand for ‘mindless sophistry’?
How is this anything but First Nations exercising superiority over the rest of us. It’s bloody well reverse racism.
Advance for their community and their people should come in the form of better education, healthcare and addiction(s) treatment for their families.
Lining one’s pocket only shortly perpetuates a life-line that is lit from the end you just can’t quite see yet…
We have let down our First Nations people. Throwing money at them but not objecting to the objectionable, hurts them and us.
50 iVan // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Tired of people saying those who protest against this sign are “racist” because they bring up that it is a Native, or aboriginal sign. You can drop your own prejudices yourselves because this sign was ONLY allowed because a Native band was putting it up. That’s the problem here. If you or I wanted to put up a billboard on our own property, forget it. So it is about race. Government mandated racism. Like it or not. Get off your reverse-discriminatory pedestal and deal with it.
To Urbanismo: “First Nations” is not the correct address for everyone. I will never use it as I find it arrogant and insulting to everyone else. Who may I ask are Second Nations? And Seventh Nations? How do we rank people? Are you wanting a caste system of sorts ranking people based on race?
To MS who said “The comments posted on this topic are plain and simple racist” and then adds “F*ck the white Man!”. Are you kidding? You completely exemplify those in our country that cry “racism” but are bigots themselves. And no, we don’t need “real” multiculturalism in this country, we need unity and a sense of universal respect for Canada and other Canadians. Not a fractured society of mini cultures, that have difficulty interacting with each other and become self-absorbed.
Back to the billboard… I will write every single company that advertises on that billboard to advise they will lose my support, and also list them in a blog.
51 MB // Dec 14, 2009 at 12:23 pm
So, the Pattison Group can erect thousands upon thousands of big, huge illuminated billboards along our roads decade after decade, some of them with electronic animation, all laden with corporate graffiti, with the occasional low level grumbling from the masses.
But the Natives decide to emulate our society by putting up a couple of billboards and it’s suddenly a Tragedy of Unmitigated Proportions, the mother of all violations.
There is indeed a bit of ‘ mindless sophistry’ being practiced in the comments above.
52 Chris Keam // Dec 15, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Cool, apparently I now have an ‘ilk’. Not-so-cool, Alice B Tsunami still dishonoring all the people who have fought and sacrificed for our freedoms by referring to cycling advocates (who promote transportation choices, not limiting freedoms) as fascists. So it goes.
Was in a car yesterday approaching the north side of the 2nd Narrows and didn’t even notice the new billboard until a second before we went past. Didn’t strike me as much of an eyesore if you don’t even notice it until it’s too late to see the message.
Leave a Comment