SPARK a Little Big Intrigue: 359 Davenport Road
Here’s a thoroughly entertaining situation.
In May 2006, a complaint was filed with Municipal Licensing and Standards regarding this illegal Titan Outdoor sign on the northern wall of the residential apartment building at 359 Davenport, just south of Dupont Street. This is what it looked like in September 2006:
Now that’s nothing interesting. MLS receives complaints against illegal signs all the time.
What’s entertaining is who filed the complaint. Check out page 2 of MLS folder 06-131040:
That’s right. According to MLS, two months before Clear Channel threatened to sue the Toronto Public Space Committee, for filing valid complaints against Clear Channel’s illegal signs, Paul Seaman, Clear Channel’s Vice President, Real Estate and Public Affairs, was doing the same thing against Titan.
Two months before Clear Channel’s solicitor was suggested that filing a billboard complaint without having “some interest in real property which adjoins the signage in question” constitutes “an unlawful interference,” Clear Channel filed a complaint against a billboard at 359 Davenport Road, miles away from any sign that Clear Channel operates. The closest Clear Channel sign to Davenport and Dupont is at Yonge and Dundas.
So MLS managed to get the sign removed. This photograph was taken by one of our volunteers, on November 9, 2006, about a month after the sign was taken down:
Notice that Titan removed the SPARK sign by way of a pair of scissors, but maintained the structure and updated their nameplate. Now check this out. On November 14, 2006, at 11:05PM, our keen-eyed volunteer caught Titan Outdoor in the act of re-erecting the illegal sign:
Our volunteer called headquarters after taking that photo and we told her to follow the truck when it leaves. “Are you crazy?” she said. “I’m not Encyclopedia Brown and I’m on my fucking bike.” But she did manage to take a photo of the truck that put up the sign. Great work.
MLS then re-visited the site and had the re-erected sign removed. This, today’s moment of zen, is what the wall looks like today:
Now we all know that advertising companies for years have filed complaints against each other’s illegal signs after some sort of business dispute. It’s like a Camorra war out there, except the hitman can’t shoot straight. What baffles us is how Paul Seaman of Clear Channel could be stupid enough to not file an anonymous complaint, or, at the very least, not drag the corporation he works for into the dirt with him, even if that corporation already has the reputation of mud.
If Paul Seaman on behalf of Clear Channel has filed any other complaints against other signs , we will let you know about it. We eagerly await the results of our 200+ MLS FOIs, most of which the City Clerk is still processing.
The question remains: Why did Clear Channel complain about Titan’s sign? We don’t know, because Jorg Cieslok, who fired his own idiotic Real Estate Manager due to IllegalSigns.ca activist action, isn’t answering our e-mails. Confidential to John Jory: you live in a glass house. You should be taking pointers from Mr. Cieslok rather than trying to beat him up.
Coming up on IllegalSigns.ca: Why we have a $1Million/Year Clear Channel billboard on the ropes.
March 20th, 2007 at 8:01 am
This site is wonderful! I learned about it through Them.ca.
Since there seems to way in the near future to eliminate outdoor advertising altogether, I am a supporter of Them’s Beautiful City Billboard Fee. If corporations can spent money to assault our eyes and minds, they can surely spend a little more to being compensating for the irritation and damage.
Thanks for producing this site, and for your vigilance. I was thrilled to discover, through your site, that the barrage of advertising at Bloor and Church is in fact illegal. I’m so sick of seeing it, and I hope it can be taken down soon. If only I had the right equipment… I’d happily take it down myself, free of charge
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
What are the ramifications for these companies that violate city laws. I’ve been reading a lot of these cases and it seems that although the city issues a notice of violations, these companies don’t comply. I’m sure if the fine was stiff enough, this wouldn’t keep happening. I’m sure there is no fine for that matter, just pay off the councilors. The surprising thing to me was Astral operating a sign that was told to come down for 12 more years, how can we let this happen. If i get a speeding ticket and don’t pay they revoke my license. These guys are not following the city’s laws and yet nothing? This is truly a mystery, lets fine these guys so that they don’t do it again.
To lay a fine requires the paperwork to be in order or the court will throw it out. This is beyond MLS’ capabilities. I once had a discussion with a MSO officer about fines. He said: “How would you like to be cross-examined by a high-priced lawyer.” In most cases, given how badly MLS prepares its cases, a high priced lawyer would be overkill.-Rami
July 6th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I live at 359 Davenport and after a couple of ad-free months our building is again sporting a huge sign.
Ah well, it was nice while it lasted.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:28 pm
At almost every intersection there are printed advertising signs posted illegally. If the red lights lasted just a bit longer, I’d like to yank those eyesores from the light posts. They take away from the environment. If I needed new furniture or a virus removed from my computer, I would check the yellow pages not phone those pesky intruders. There are more progressive cities, such as Salem and Portland, Oregon where signs have to follow stringent guidelines as to size, colours and location. There is a calm uniformity to the streets, especially plazas and public buildings. They are devoid of unsightly advertising that pollutes our natural spaces and the places where we gather, shop and enjoy life.