Top

news

Stories

 

Sign of Sleaze

While commissioners dither, advertisers get away with (visual) murder

The area around downtown Miami has been infiltrated by renegade outdoor advertising. Murals on buildings appear quickly and quietly; a crumbling façade on an Overtown corner becomes a two-story-tall ad spot for Skyy Vodka; three floors of an office building south of Flagler transform into a giant space to promote ribs; an abandoned building on North Miami Avenue is suddenly a massive billboard for Budweiser.

Most of the murals are in Commissioner Marc Sarnoff's district. All of them, he says, are illegal — and he recently began a crusade to regulate them. "I think [they're] visible pollution," he says, insisting he's fighting for "freedom ... from advertisement."

What's in a sign? The answer, of course, is money. Major companies pay major moolah to have their logos draped over buildings with prominent views. (Buildings facing expressways are especially valuable.) Sarnoff estimates the largest murals can earn from $20,000 to $40,000 per month or more — in some cases, that's enough to pay for the buildings where they're posted several times over.

Documents show that haphazard code enforcement, slow-moving lawmakers, and possible conflicts of interest at city hall have made hanging murals one of the fastest ways to earn a buck in town.

City law makes some allowances. A club or condo can advertise its own wares, for instance. And places like the Miami Herald can get permits for monstrous signs. But for years city inspectors have been fighting a losing battle against the illegal ads, admits code enforcement director Mariano de Mola. In 2003 he cracked down. "Lemme tell you, we combed the whole city," he says. He and his men identified 48 illegal murals around town. They cited all the owners, and most removed the offending work.

According to De Mola, 13 building owners appealed their case to the city's code enforcement board. Four were found to be legal after all, and nine were deemed in violation. But this is where things get really weird. Instead of removing the offending material, those nine property owners cut a deal: They would preserve the ads and simply have the ad agencies responsible for the murals pay the maximum daily fine of $250. (That's $91,250 per year.)

In the years since De Mola's 2003 mural roundup, however, enforcement has been spotty at best. Last month Sarnoff showed more than two dozen slides to city commissioners that he said included renegade murals.

And at least one of the nine companies that signed on to this agreement apparently simply stopped paying: Eastern Union Corporation, a Miami company that lists attorney Edward J. McCormick as its registered agent. The firm owns 111 SW Third St., a small office and residential building with big walls facing I-95 and the Miami River. Last week the structure had two massive murals hanging on its east and west sides — one a sultry four-story ad for Aldo Shoes, the other featuring a platter of ribs from the GameWorks Arena Sports Bar and Grill. They covered approximately half the surface of the walls they occupy.

A well-dressed, middle-age woman who works on an upper-level floor said her office windows were covered by a mural. "It's like a haze outside the window," said the woman, who declined to give her name. "It's like a dark haze."

Yet the $250-per-day payments ceased in January 2007, city records show and De Mola confirms. The city stopped fining the building after it received a letter — supplied to New Times by De Mola — from McCormick stating the murals had been removed. "Since we no longer have wall murals," McCormick wrote, "we will not be paying to the City of Miami the $250 per day."

The code enforcement officer says inspectors confirmed the murals had been taken down. He's not sure exactly when they went back up, but the case was reopened July 25, shortly after Sarnoff submitted a list of apparent violators. "Admittedly it's like a game," says De Mola. "We cite them, they take it down, they put it up again."

Reached by telephone, McCormick would only say, "No, I'm not interested, bye," before hanging up. (By Monday, the GameWorks mural had been removed.)

Here are a few other locations where building owners have posted murals with little city scrutiny:

• 1236 N. Miami Ave., which is surrounded by a chainlink fence and barbed wire, boasts one large ad for Chevrolet, and, facing I-95, an enormous spot for Pom Tea. It's owned by Fast Park II, which is represented by a lawyer in Weston. It was recently cited by the city.

• 1334 N. Miami Ave. is a dilapidated, historic building that hosts a two-sided wraparound mural for a photography show, with north and east exposure. On the other side is a Budweiser ad as tall as the building itself. Though the place's owner, Eugene Rodriguez, was cited, code enforcement board chairman Charles McEwan agreed fines wouldn't be levied, at least until a mural law is passed.

• 50 Biscayne Blvd. until recently had a 15-story-high advertisement for Sunglass Hut that was so big you could see it from Miami Beach. According to De Mola, the property was cited in April and was being charged $150 per day. Why not $250? De Mola says that's up to a special master, not his department.

1 | 2 | Next Page >>
 
  • Well read 09/18/2007 10:35:00 AM

    Many cities realize that they need tough regulations to keep the outdoor advertisers in check. Then they need to enforce laws on the book. San Paulo just ordered 100% of its billboards and murals taken down. Other cities have tough regulations. Why would a new retailer want to open a store on Flagler if downtown looks like a dump? Why would a new company want to rent office space just so they could lose their view because a fabric advertisement has blocking their windows? Great story by New Times and Isaiah Thompson.

  • well traveled 09/14/2007 5:54:00 PM

    Miami has better things to worry about than billboards and murals downtown... how about fixing basic things like having some decent stores and restaurants on Flagler Street. And no one is going to stop coming to Miami because there is a 20-story Sunglass Hut ad on the side of a building. New York, Tokyo, and Hong Kong all are covered in signs and part of the basic nature of the city.

  • Miami can be beautiful 09/13/2007 3:41:00 AM

    Miami can look much better. Billboards and illegal murals are disgusting and they make Miami look bad. I praise any politician or anyone who stands up to the blood sucking outdoor advertising industry. Who wants to fly off on vacation and land and then be assaulted by huge 7-8 story billboard advertisements? Who would be eager to return?

  • DE 09/11/2007 11:05:00 AM

    Harvey Ruvin $36 million dollar scandal web site: http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2004-11-04/news/yours-for-the-hacking/full

  • well traveled 09/10/2007 11:58:00 AM

    Get a clue people... Miami is UGLY. Unless you are on the beach looking at the water the billboards/murals are better than anything else on the landscape, ESPECIALLY the billboards on I-95.

  • Billboards are disgusting 09/08/2007 9:53:00 AM

    Anyone noticed how many billboards are polluting our highways? And now many are 70' to 85' high. Disgusting. Put up by many of the same companies that put up illegal murals too, I understand.

  • Sarnoff knows the score 09/07/2007 10:09:00 AM

    Commissioner Sarnoff knows the outdoor advertisers are taking advantage of the City of Miami. Even San Paulo, a city of 11 Mil, voted to ban all billboards. On Jan 1st, 2007 over 11,000 billboards in San Paulo came down. People said they found neighborhoods they never knew existed. I am glad Sarnoff is taking a stand. Someone has to stand up to well connected property owners, and their lobbyists, acting illegally.

  • Wall ads are visual pollution 09/07/2007 9:28:00 AM

    Murals are in Miami are illegal. Most are disgusting advertisements trying to sell liquor or ugly cars. The property owners who allow the illegal ads are breaking the City laws and most are evading Federal income taxes. I wish the City of Miami enforced the Code. Our taxes might be lower.

  • well traveled 09/06/2007 8:22:00 AM

    Sarnoff is amazingly clueless... cities exist for business and a city without advertising is a dead city. Signage and advertising are as necessary for business districts as are streets and sidewalks. On a more basic level the murals are in most cases more attractive than the building they cover. This puritanical posturing by both Sarnoff and the New Times is simply na�.

 
Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy