[jeffem]

I wonder what the comments here would look like if the ban would have been on a different advertising medium, say, online advertising.

I'd be willing to bet the great majority here would oppose it, and I'd be willing to bet that people would be exploring all of the negative and potential unintended consequences.

Have you considered the immediate losses advertisers will incur from removing/destroying their advertising assets? Will those costs be passed on to customers? What about the "public" cost of implementing and enforcing the ban itself? What effect does this have on companies that sell outdoor ads? Does this concentrate power to companies that sell other types of advertising and reduce competition? Does this lower the value of real estate properties that previously sold ad space? What happens to people who previously discovered or visited businesses via outdoor ads? What about the people who actually enjoy the ads?

On a deeper level, why stop at banning outdoor ads? Should we ban other things we find aesthetically unpleasing or is there something about these outdoor ads that was materially damaging people? Also, how exactly do you determine if this ban was a "success"?

[kawera]

* Also, how exactly do you determine if this ban was a "success"? *

Before the vote, polls indicated that the majority of "paulistanos" wanted the ban. Now, 5 years later, a poll done by a local paper showed that over 90% of residents approuve the results and want it to continue.

[forensic]

You're spreading FUD. The public doesn't need focus groups and rigorous experimental studies to know that it values a clean city free of visual pollution. it just needs to vote for it.

Where are the studies showing that visual clutter benefits everyone? Oh ya that's right nobody asked for studies because "benefitting everyone" is low priority next to silencing the voice of the public to ensure no obstacles to the corporations that rape our world.