Refine proposal on sponsorships

Facing public resistance to raising fees and taxes to pay for essential city services, the city has resurrected a 2-year-old proposal to raise money another way — commercial sponsorship of city assets.

In theory, it’s a good idea.

The city’s inadequate record of maintaining and improving its properties, especially public parks and facilities like neighborhood gyms or entertainment venues, has not motivated the public to support tax increases to make them better.

Civic-minded businesses and community organizations who want to support specific city assets would have an established way to do so. It could be a win-win.

But the devil is always in the details, and Bill 78, first introduced in 2015 and modified heavily since then, is notably lacking in some important ones. Crucial elements would be filled in by the city administration through the writing of administrative rules.

For instance, the bill doesn’t mention “signs” or “signage,” but doesn’t prohibit them either. Rather, “appropriate sponsorship recognition or display” would be allowed, provided that such recognition “blend in with the surrounding environment,” whatever that means. Presumably, such displays could include signs bearing company logos.

Critics of the bill, including The Outdoor Circle, fear the bill would lead to a proliferation of off-site outdoor advertising, eroding the city and state’s strict signage rules that are designed to restrict visual pollution. Maybe.

The bill requires that the city conform to state and city laws regarding sign displays. But rules can be bent, especially if the city really wants to make a deal — and no doubt it will, given the financial pressures of an underfunded, multibillion-dollar rail project. And sponsor recognition isn’t limited to signs on land; it could turn up on city vehicles, although not on city buses.

Unlike in other states, Hawaii’s sign laws have eliminated the visual blight of billboards — an aesthetic value, to be sure, but also an economic imperative. Hawaii’s beautiful natural landscape is its chief selling point. Preventing off-site advertising is crucial in maintaining that value.

Provided Bill 78 preserves this intent, it has some merit.

Commercial sponsorship of municipal assets is hardly new. Other cities have programs even more aggressive than Bill 78’s. For instance, the bill would not allow the city to sell naming rights for memorials, city parks, and facilities or sites. But it would give the city another tool for leveraging public assets to raise badly needed funds.

It’s a tool that should be used judiciously. Sponsorships come and go, and the city can’t become dependent on them to fund essential services; Bill 78 itself is a five-year pilot project. Nor can the city allow large sponsors to exert undue influence on city policies in exchange for their money.

That’s why it’s imperative that any sponsorship agreements be handled with maximum public disclosure, to ensure that the public interest is protected.

It’s important to be able to follow the money. Bill 78 requires the funds to be spent “for their designated purpose,” as agreed to by the city and the sponsor — an agreement that must be part of the public record.

The sponsor’s contribution would be “deposited into the appropriate fund as determined by the director of budget and fiscal services,” the bill says. Those who anticipate the creation of a special fund to improve their beloved neighborhood park may be disappointed if the budget director simply casts the money into the city’s general fund.

As it stands, Bill 78 — up for final City Council vote on Wednesday — is not ready for prime time. It should be improved with more specific restrictions on signage to ensure there is no conflict with existing law. It also needs clearer language about what could constitute a “conflict of interest” in a sponsorship arrangement. Nonetheless, with increasing pressure on city services and the giant shadow of rail, commercial sponsorship is looking better and better.