|
|
|
|
|
| Naming rights "In your opinion should public agencies sell corporate naming rights to public-owned property or services as a means of raising revenue?" "I find the "be honest about what things cost" comment amusing. Today county paychecks had the wrong date on them, and it's not like a weekend payday happens once every twenty or thirty years. If Burger King County can't figure our what day to pay its employees, how can they find out what light rail, criminal justice, social services or anything else costs?" "There is already a perception that government is for sale. Naming buildings, sports fields or courthouses for corporations will simply intensify that perception." "You bet I'd like to comment! If I helped pay for something, I sure don't want some company to claim it as their own by putting their name on it. Isn't it enough that many of our elected officials are bought and sold by corporations and big money?" "I very strongly oppose selling naming rights for publicly owned properties or services. For the corporations who buy these "rights", this is a very cheap form of advertising. Every mention of the name in print, on TV, or on the radio, is a mini-commercial. Otherwise, obviously, the corporation would not buy the name in the first place. If it were not a really good deal for the corporation, they wouldn't pay for it. It is not possible to justify public subsidy of corporate advertising. Politicians should be honest about how much things cost and develop equitable ways for people to pay for them. Among the necessary first steps (in this state) are a personal income tax and a regional county services levy." "As a vegetarian I don't welcome the thought of a McDonald's park with McDonald's fast food just because so many dumb Tim Eyman initiatives were passed here. I oppose corporate naming rights since too much brainwashing is always going on. Enough already." "Absolutely NOT. The taxpayers put in far more money than any other entity; if anything, public facilities should be named for them. BUT, if we continue to sell these "rights", then at the very least the first part of any name should be "King County", e.g. "King County Safeco Field", with "King County" given prominence throughout the facility, not Safeco. We've been selling these "rights" far too cheaply. What would Safeco have to pay for equivalent ads for all the time its name appears on screen? Much, much, more than it gave for "naming rights"." "It may violate the state constitution, but if it avoids a property tax increase; it's fine by me." "This comment can apply to practically all of these inane polls...MANAGE BETTER THE REVENUE THAT YOU ALREADY RECEIVE VIA OUR INSANELY HIGH & REGRESSIVE LOCAL TAX STRUCTURE!! p.s. We clearly already sell corporate naming/shaming rights to all of our local politicians as a means of raising revenue, every election cycle. Keep ads off public owned property or services! It's all we have left." "I am still waiting for for Tampax Field or the Kotex Court House at Burger King County." "Burger King County...now that sounds like a good title." "The whole "naming rights" thing is so tacky, I can't believe anyone in government thinks it is acceptable. I hope this little fad dies out once we the public get sick enough of selling out for a few bucks and being even more bombarded with corporate brainwashing than we already are. It's really embarrassing and what a revolting legacy for our children. Of course, since many of them are walking corporate billboards and are educated in corporate ho schools, they probably won't notice. I am really glad I didn't grow up in this rich-tightwad culture (and yes, I was born here, so don't start in with the "if you don't like it here, then leave" hogwash). I can't believe this filty rich nation has so little class and taste." "We could have the Harrah's Reno Department of Elections; the Enron Budget Office; the Exxon Valdez Department of Development and Environmental Services; and the Barnum and Bailey King County Council. The possibilities are endless." "Sure! I've been waiting for us to become Burger King County for quite a while. We could pick up quite a bit of money and restore our cut services - and pay for those 13 council members." "Corporate taxes have been slashed to the bone. If corporate taxes were at the same level as they were in the 50's, public agencies wouldn't need to sell naming rights." "WHO GIVES A CRAP. SOME PEOPLE HAVE TO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS. DO A POLL ON THINGS THAT MATTER. LIKE BELLY BUTTON LINT OR TOE JAM...." "Isay no only because down the road you would find some porn company or other non main stream companies that would sue the government when they were refused naming rights because of the nature of their business.Then the government would be forced to fight them in court or settle the lawsuit. Either way taxpayers money would be spent on lawyers." Updated: Sept. 19, 2003 | |
|
Executive's news Executive's site map | E-mail the Executive By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. |