City projects bring new chances for civic naming
Over the mayor’s objection, the city council has enacted a policy that would allow public facilities to be named after corporations.
“To do that would be selling off our assets,” said Santa Monica Mayor Mike Feinstein.
With a glut of new public buildings in the works, the city council hammered out a policy Tuesday intended to guide future politicians on how to name new public facilities.
The city council voted 4-2 in favor of allowing buildings to be named after local, national and international corporations or persons who have made significant contributions to the community.
Fearful that mega-corporations would want to buy the naming rights to some of the city’s more popular tourist attractions for advertising purposes, Feinstein and Mayor Pro Tem Kevin McKeown fought to forbid the practice.
“What disturbs me the most is this self-delusional idea that by allowing corporate naming we wouldn’t be putting our public spaces up for sale,” Feinstein said. “I am flabbergasted we would allow large economic incentives to name our public facilities.”
“I am flabbergasted we would allow large economic incentives to name our public facilities.” — – MIKE FEINSTEIN Mayor of Santa Monica
Feinstein argued that as Santa Monica continues to face increasingly difficult economic times, corporations could offer to help the city complete capital improvements in exchange for the naming rights.
To balance the city’s budget this year, the city council had to cut or suspend more than $20 million worth of capital improvements.
However, the city continues to move forward with a $120 million redevelopment of the Civic Center, the building of a new $50 million Main Library and a $95 million overhaul of downtown public parking. All would offer significant naming opportunities, officials said.
But others on the council said politicians wouldn’t allow for distasteful naming of buildings because it would likely enrage voters. They also argued that it may be appropriate to name a new park or a building after a corporation that made the project a reality.
“There may be appropriate circumstances when we want to recognize a corporation or an individual who makes a significant donation of land or money to the city,” said Councilman Richard Bloom, who cited Douglas Park as an example, which he said was named after Donald Douglas — an aircraft manufacturer that donated the land.
“What we want to do is avoid the ‘McDonald’s Pier’ or any other corporation that would use naming as a source of advertising,” he added.
Councilman Robert Holbrook said he couldn’t understand the outrage over allowing the city to name public property after corporations.
“I just don’t share the view that all corporations are bad,” he said. “Even the Red Cross is incorporated, would you not want to name something after them?”
McKeown tried to compromise by suggesting that the city allow the names’ of non-commercial corporations only, but his proposal died when no one supported it.
Another point of contention for Feinstein and McKeown — both of whom are Green Party activists — is that the policy doesn’t allow for a mandatory length of time between the death of a beloved local figure and when the council could officially name a civic institution after them. Originally, senior city staff had recommended a five-year time period, but the council eliminated that requirement.
“We shouldn’t be naming public buildings after the death of the week,” McKeown said.
However, the majority of council members said there hasn’t been a lot of pressure to name public areas after recently deceased community leaders.
“There hasn’t been a stampede to name things after people,” Holbrook said. “We have beloved people pass away all the time and we aren’t faced with naming decisions. Adopting that requirement would be locking us into a policy that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”
Councilman Ken Genser argued the naming policy is nothing new. He said it’s what the city has been doing for years, only now the council has made the practice official by putting it on paper.
“I hope this policy is kept in perspective,” he said. “It’s not changing anything that we haven’t already done for decades.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 11, 2002. Read the original PDF.