Selling Bridges or Random Acts of Kindness?

It caused more furor in San Francisco than el nino, more conversation than the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence marching through the streets on Easter Sunday, dressed as nuns. And most of the controversy was based on conjecture. Bill Meagher reported in The Pacific Sun that Brian Stafford, president of the online company carOrder.com, wanted to place a banner across the Golden Gate Bridge advertising business. But according to Mary Ellen West, a representative for the company, the banner is always there -- it advertises the bay ferry service. Once the controversy escalated, the banner was removed.

The original plan was to use the ferry banner for one day, to advertise carOrder.com. For this, the company would pay the fares of people crossing the bridge that day -- approximately $160,000. The Bridge District turned down that offer -- too little money (i.e. none for the District itself). The offer was amended to a $400,000 payment and payment of the bridge tolls.

This is when the real battle began. An awful lot of people thought it was a travesty to have an advertising banner across the bridge -- somehow forgetting it was already there. Now, the money offered would pay for the retrofit needed on the bridge, but this apparently wasn't enough of an enducement. So ther offer hasn't been accepted -- it hasn't really been refused, either -- it just lives on in limbo.

There is an alternative offer to still pay the tolls for the one day and handout cards telling drivers who paid their tolls, but that probably won't be approved -- the Bridge District has no real interest in saving drivers money. And the only other way to raise the money for the retrofit, which amounts to $257 million at last calculation, is to raise the bridge tolls. Despite the fact that tolls on the West Coast are much lower than bridges in the East, this plan doesn't sit well with the people of California.

The original plan was to use the ferry banner for one day, to advertise carOrder.com. In exchange for this, the company would pay the fares of people crossing the bridge that day -- approximately $160,000.

San Francisco Supervisor Barbara Kaufman believes the banner space should be rented once a month. Even this wouldn't pay for the cost of the bridge retrofitting, only the debt service on the loan, which is between 4 and 5 million a year. Supervisor Michael Yaki doesn't agree with her, believes the bridge shouldn't be for sale. But nobody has yet mentioned that the banner is already there, already advertising ferries. Why do ferries find favor in Mr. Yaki's eyes, but not cars? Isn't all advertising equal? Wouldn't $400,000 a months make some advertising more equal?

The friendly folks at carOrder.com are sure they're on to something big, whether the Golden Gate Bridge deal works out or not. They have plans for banners all over the country, including New York, Dallas, Washington D.C. and Chicago. They're not sure how the proposed banner in San Francisco became controversial, when all they really wanted to do was introduce people to a better way to buy a car. Mary Ellen West told me, "Buying a care is not one of life's most pleasant experiences, and we want to change that at carOrder.com. We piloted our service in San Francisco, and we wanted to thank the people of that city and also tell them about 'happy car buying'. So we offered to pay everyone's tolls for a day as a random act of kindness. And the banner was to let people know their tolls were free that day, being paid for by carOrder.com.

"We're still going to pay the tolls, and possibly pass out cards letting drivers know who paid the toll. We haven't given up on the banner idea -- we know the Golden Gate Bridge is a beautiful national treasure and we wouldn't want to destroy that. We aren't going to hang a banner across the bridge; just utilize one that's already across the toll plaza, advertising the ferry services. But the whole thing was blown out of context and people are very protective of that bridge."