The Hunter Gatherer Lodge says “OK” on Wednesday nights but some community members are telling the lodge that their non-traditional promotion of the weekly event is not OK at all.
Earlier this month, stenciled graffiti reading “Say OK Wednesday” began appearing on Capitol Hill sidewalks in an effort to advertise a weekly club night at the Lodge which will likely be Capitol Hill’s first state-approved nightclub. It’s certainly not the first stencil ad effort on the Hill and likely won’t be the last. But it might be the most ambitious effort to date.
Hunter Gatherer Lodge owner Marcus Lalario said he had nothing to do with the stenciling, it was the work of an independent promoter whom Lalario would not name.
“They did one run and I told them to stop doing that,” Lalario said.
Community member David Bovard wants to keep the business responsible for its promoters. He created a flickr set of all the occurrences of the graffiti he could find. You can see his collection in the slideshow below. The current total is at 61 in a variety of colors and locations on the hill. Bovard filed a report with Seattle Public Utilities on June 14. According to their website, Public Utilities should clean up the graffiti within 10 days of receiving the report because the vandalism occurred on public property.
We’ve also hosted some discussion about the advertising in the CHS forums. Comments in the thread are mixed. While some agree that the ads shouldn’t be allowed, many others say the stencils are no big deal:
There are many more important things to be enthusiastic about. These ads aren’t hurting anyone. Put your anger towards this petty reality of living in a city against something legitimately hurting the community. Into something positive. Go volunteer at Lifelong or something, geez. Relax man!
Considering the violence that the HGL has brought to its block since it opened not long ago, the stencil clearly should have read:
“Say OW.”
I guess chalk is not permanent, but, it feels like trash.
What happened to posters on poles? Mostly used for bar events, shows, etc. … go to it … the pole posting is legal and much used.
Mike, it isn’t chalk, it is paint.
This brand of club promotion seems pretty disrespectful of the neighborhood to me. Way to class it up, HGL!
The owner’s response (“the promoter did it”) is a really classic example of avoiding responsibility. Surely, he is ultimately to blame for any nefarious actions done on the club’s behalf. I would like to see him arrange to have all this grafitti cleaned up, because in my experience SPU does not usually clean up stuff on the pavement, only on utility poles and the like.
And, Mike with curls…yes, postering is legal if it is done within SDOT regulations, but well over 90% of postering ignores those regulations. That’s why the Pike-Pine streetscape is such a ragged, trashy mess.
This guy is an idiot for blaming the promotor. The owner should be held accountable for the actions of his promotor.
funny how some folks try to say it’s ok when it’s advertising, but the minute a street rat paints on an access door or wall it’s illegal.
These folks ever heard of stapling signs to poles or maybe tshirts or sandwich boards?
Repy to C.
The history of posting is that the Supreme Court of Washington threw out city laws prohibiting and called it free speech.
So, with all due respect, regulation per se, will be futile.
Of course, they, SDOT, have their regs., that is the way city bureaucrats work.
That was a major victory at a time when the city had declared even yard sale flyers were illegal, and made a big fuss about posting…. yes, cops involved.
I like poles full of color and information.
Edit: Wrong reply.
Am I the only one who saw these, but had no clue what in the heck they were promoting? Honestly, every time I read one, I read it as “Soy OK” and I thought it was some anti-meat thing. Srsly.
Is Lalario claiming the promoter had carte blanche and that he never signed off on this in the first place? No way.
“funny how some folks try to say it’s ok when it’s advertising, but the minute a street rat paints on an access door or wall it’s illegal.”
When I think “street rat”, I think spangers and rail riders, not the suburbans that tag up everywhere.
If you’re talking about the public perception, it really is a more subjective matter and the placement and SKILL of the people involved do matter.
Painting concrete permanently defaces it. If this had been done with a chalk –or even the pressure-washed ads you’ll see on grimy sidewalks in NYC (selective cleaning)– I’d feel differently about it. My personal disdain for HGL aside, they are as culpable as their shadowy ‘promoter’ is, and should get an earful (or mailbox full of tickets) from SPD/city over this.
Mike,
The WA Supreme Court did not rule that the city’s poster ban regulations were protected free speech. The court actually upheld the city’s poster ban. 152 Wash.2d 343, 96 P.3d, 979 (2004). The city later changed its regulations to remove the ban.
I wonder if sidewalk “graffiti” is any worse than having most utility polls on the hill trashed up with unkempt poster upon poster and “survival of the latest” the way it goes with posters. Who cares if your event that hasn’t happened yet gets covered with *my* more important poster? It’s trash and looks worse than sidewalk graffiti.
To Mike With Curls: Trash is never attractive. Utility poles are just trash as far as I can see.
Free speech trash – maybe.
You need to go to the burbs, where all the utilitees are buried … nice an clean and boring.
I LOVE the color and information on the poles.
So … we do not agree.
So …
Curly
I think you are wrong ….. the Supremes mocked the city argument about worker safety going up poles, in their decision, noting the cherry picker is now used … but… no time to look all that up.
The city did NOT change without pressure.
Thanks, David Bovard, Jake W., and CHS, for bringing attention to this. The promoter with whom Marcus Lalario conspired should cover the cost of removal of his advertising from our sidewalks. We’re fortunate that Hunter Gatherer Lodge owner Marcus Lalario publicly admitted that he knows who did it.
Frances wrote, “While some agree that the ads shouldn’t be allowed, many others say the stencils are no big deal”
Frances’ statement is misleading. At the time of this post, eight people who commented in the related CHS forum discussion expressed that this was unacceptable (Jake W., Calhoun, “Me”, Good Idea, Broadway CEO, Funkisockmunki, Aandroid, and Mappy) and seven said “no big deal” (Mama, Laurn, Corporate, Pigeon Keeper, Hardcore212, Hank W., and Danny Walters).
No, Mike, you’re wrong. I provided the citation, so it would have only taken you a couple of minutes – less time than you spent on your post claiming that I was wrong – to confirm the inaccuracy of your initial account of “history.”
It’s a 21 page opinion, so I won’t bother posting it all here. But, here are some excerpts:
Background: City filed action against moving company to recover costs of removing signs it had posted on utility poles in violation of ordinance. The Superior Court, King County, Richard McDermott, J., granted summary judgment for city. Moving company appealed. The Court of Appeals, 112 Wash.App. 904, 51 P.3d 152, reversed. Review was granted.
Holdings: The Supreme Court, Madsen, J., held that:
(1) utility poles were nonpublic forums, and
(2) ordinance was constitutional
“There is neither historical nor constitutional support for the characterization of a utility pole as a public forum.”
“Because utility poles are a nonpublic forum, posting on utility poles may be regulated if the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint neutral.”
“Seattle’s ordinance is reasonable in light of the primary purpose of utility poles, which is to support utility lines. Their secondary purpose is to provide regulatory signs posted by government.”
“Conclusion
Washington follows federal forum analysis and Vincent has established that utility poles are not a traditional public forum. We uphold the ordinance as a content neutral regulation governing a nonpublic forum. The ordinance is reasonable legislation in light of the purposes served by utility poles. We reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the City.”
Now, to be fair, Justice Sanders wrote a strong dissent, to which Owens and Chambers signed on. However, a dissent is not the Court’s holding.
So, once again, the history is not at all that the State Supreme Court “threw out city laws prohibiting and called it free speech.” It did the opposite.
If you’re a lawyer, remind to me never refer anyone to you.
Regardless of all that, I always thought the City’s ban was stupid and posters on utility poles have never bothered me. I used to hang them myself years ago.
I think Marcus should be held accountable and not the promoter. Then next time Marcus will be a little smarter about who he does business with and how they conduct business that benefits him.
His comments suggest he has difficulty with taking responsibilty.
Halis, thank you very much for clarifying what actually happened in the court cases (as opposed to some people’s selective memory). You are indeed correct that the final decision (by the Washington State Supreme Court) said that utility poles are not a “traditional public forum” and that therefore postering could be regulated (including a total ban) by local jursidictions. However, this decision came down in September, 2004, and by then the Seattle City Council had already over-turned the poster ban (fall,2002) on the basis of the Appeals Court decision in August, 2002. It still amazes me that the City Council did this prior to the final decision by the Supreme Court.
The current postering regulations (SDOT “Director’s Rule 02-02”) went into effect in January, 2003. These are the regulations which have been widely ignored ever since, and SDOT has been unwilling to do anything about it. The result is what you see on many of our streets, and I am far from alone in not being happy about the trashing of our streetscapes.
Weekilter, I agree with you. Most who poster are guilty of ignoring city regulations, and many are unethical in that they cover up other posters which are still current. Also, there is alot of money being made by postering businesses, and they too routinely ignore the regulations. And what about the several incidents of poles being set on fire over the past year? (using accumulated posters as fuel).
I think also that postering is basically ineffective, because there are so many posters on each pole that it’s just “white noise,” and no one poster can actually be noticed. Have you ever actually seen anyone pause and get information from a poster? (I haven’t).
Thanks for that info, Calhoun. I agree, amazing that the City overturned the regulations based on the Appellate decision yet still decided to appeal to SC.
Also, I agree with you about trashing of streetscapes. I’m not typically bothered by posters on utility poles, but they end up all over the surrounding sidewalks, are posted on top of each other 10 layers thick, etc.
Legality aside, it’s a trashy way to market their business.
While they might get short term boost in brand awareness they are overlooking the long term perception of their brand/business.
Sure, some people think it’s no big deal, but I have yet to hear of anyone say the advertisements are a good idea that would compel them to patronize the establishment. It’s just sidewalk Spam if you ask me.
This article and all this discourse is proving it a pretty good form of advertising!
and the Hill doesn’t need to look any dirtier than it already is.