Little Times Square

City continues proposed ordinance to regulate mural advertisements

By Stephanie Rodriguez

Illegal “mural” advertisements in Miami’s nightlife district have the whole city watching. Photo by Richard M. Brooks

Will Miami be the next New York City?

That mere suggestion sparked a four-hour debate between lobbyists and Miami city commissioners last Thursday. Ultimately, however, the commission delayed voting on two dueling proposals to regulate “mural” advertisements in Miami until March 13.

There are as many as 35 illegal advertising murals in Miami, amounting to $2.5 million in fines not collected by a city that expects to see a $20 million shortfall next year, according to Commissioner Marc Sarnoff.

“Make no mistake, all murals with commercial messages are illegal,” he said.

Sarnoff and City Manager Pete Hernandez proposed two different ordinances to commissioners on Feb. 14 to regulate the illegal murals that cover buildings in the city’s nightlife district.

An ordinance sponsored by Sarnoff aims to curtail what he calls “visual pollution” by limiting the murals and where they can be placed. Hernandez’s version calls for what some local activists consider a more “business-friendly” resolution that allows more murals downtown and charges less in fines.

“I think the industry will focus on fees,” Hernandez said. “What it all boils down to is that the industry is going to criticize both ordinances.”

Once companies are fined for putting up illegal murals, they currently have 30 days to remove them or incur fines.

However, most of the companies that have been cited fail to comply and, as a result, incur daily fines for continuing to break the law. Any violator can ask the volunteer code enforcement board to reduce the fines.

Nine companies have entered into an agreement with the city to pay at least $250 a day in fines for illegally posting advertisements. So far, four of those companies have paid their fees to the city.

Sarnoff believes that the current system does not deter advertisers from putting up murals.

“You could be looking at 100 murals,” he said. “Every building will have a mural downtown. Look at Sao Paolo, Brazil — it’s the mural capital of the world.”

Sarnoff’s proposed ordinance would limit the area where murals are allowed to a district bounded by the Miami River, I-95, Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast 15th Street.

His proposal would allow just 15 permits in that area — none within 500 feet of residential properties.

The proposal also would mandate strict licensing requirements, background checks for mural advertisers, experience in the outdoor advertising field and public liability insurance, among other stipulations. Applicants, who would be chosen through a lottery process, would also have to pay $2,500 to prequalify, secure a $1 million bond, and pay $10,000 per year in application fees and between $6,000 and $10,000 per month, per mural. Half of the money generated would go to the Miami Arts and Entertainment Trust Fund, the other half to park site acquisition.

In contrast, the city manager’s ordinance is more lenient to advertisers and property owners. It allows advertisements to cover windows, exempts government buildings, reduces fees to $8,000 per month and allows the ads to cover up to 20,000 square feet of wall space, as opposed to Sarnoff’s 2,000. The new version also increases the size of the permitted zone for murals.

Commissioner Angel Gonzalez argued that permit fees should be charged according to location.

“I think it’s totally unfair to assess the same cost of permits to every mural,” he said. “I know that a mural [visible to] I-95 is going to cost more than one down Eighth Street.”

The issue, which has been debated for almost three years by commissioners, lobbyists, residents and local activists, remains unresolved because the groups can’t agree on regulations.

“Maybe we can meet somewhere down the middle,” Sarnoff told Hernandez. “We need to think about the residents in that area.”

However, some lobbyists focused on other issues.

“I don’t think the industry will be able to support the fees,” attorney Lucia Dougherty said. “We support regulations, but these urban land murals have been here since the ’30s.”

In a PowerPoint presentation, Dougherty suggested that the advertisements were the same as several popular murals that have made history, including the infamous behind-baring Coppertone billboard-turned-mural, now in downtown.

“We did not put up illegal signs,” said former state Rep. Manuel Prieguez, lobbying on behalf of Capitol Outdoor Advertising. Prieguez argued that Capitol and other companies that did not post illegal murals should get first priority in the lottery process.

Prieguez also told the commission that most companies who put up murals are not based in Miami.

“A lot of companies do not know that they are violating laws,” he said.

Then there were those who could not be happier that the city is attempting to take control of murals.

Sharon Dodge, president of Venetian Condos, located at 555 N.E. 15th St., said either ordinance would save the appearance of her building.

“This is salvation on a stick for us,” she said.

However, Barbara Bisno, of the Venetian Causeway Alliance, felt that Sarnoff’s ordinance would be the better choice.

Hernandez’s plan would allow lighting of the murals — a bad idea, according to Bisno.

“How can we illuminate signs on our buildings when [the] building faces a residence?” she asked. “Why would people [who] want to live in the beautiful condos that you’re building want to live in something like that?”

One property owner wants the commission to concentrate on opportunities for less-fortunate residents.

Artist George Sanchez-Calderon, who owns a building in Miami, has been vying for the addition of a mural advertisement on his property.

“Allowing an artist or artist group to reap the economic benefits of a wall sign means the funding would go directly to support the cultural development within our community, without bureaucracy being involved,” he said. “I support the maximum amount of wall murals that the county allows.”

Sanchez-Calderon, who has lived and worked in the District 2 area for 10 years, said murals should be concentrated in an area reminiscent of Times Square.

“Ironically, the funding generated [in] the city will benefit arts programs and greenery of the parks,” he said. “All of the projects and installations I have ever [created] have all occurred not only in the city of Miami, but in District 2.

“As an artist and property owner, I would rather generate income from a wall sign so I can continue to keep exhibiting, and furthering the cause of the arts in Miami.”

 Comments? E-mail letters@miamisunpost.com.