CFAH

Originally drafted to “prohibit the use of aircraft, self-propelled, or buoyant objects to display any sign or advertising device” in the airspace over the America’s Cup course, the language in the ordinance proposed by Supervisors Kim and Avalos has been broadened to include the airspace over the City and County of San Francisco, and at all times.
From the findings to support the legislation: “Tourism, San Francisco’s largest revenue generating industry, benefits from the preservation of the City’s unique character, architecture and vistas. Reducing the amount of advertising in the City will help accentuate its distinctive appearance and the character that tourists visit the City to experience.” Like Fisherman’s Wharf.
While the ordinance would add Article 49 to San Francisco’s Police Code to enforce the ban, keep in mind that it’s the federal government that regulate all aspects of civil aviation. And should San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors approve the ban which would take effect 30 days from the ordinance’s passage, it would likely fly into court.
And yes, if passed and upheld, that would mean no more Minions floating overhead.
Proposed Aerial Signs and Advertising Ban Ordinance [sfbos.org]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Bbg

    Is there anything more self absorbed than a San Francisco NIMBY? Who else takes their personal pet peeve and elevates it to a complete ban on the entire city? A ban on space that SF doesnt even have jurisdiction over?
    Tell me that the average joe living in SF cares this much about the planes which fly overhead? Or is this the complaint of the elite of the elite? These people have nothing better to do than shutter themselves in their luxury abode and obsess about the “damn kids on their lawn”
    ..because we as a city have nothing better to do than cater to the whims of these people.

  2. Posted by Brian

    So glad to hear the supervisors are tackling the big problems in this city…wow great job!

  3. Posted by anon

    Excellent! This has actually been a huge annoyance for people living from telegraph hill down to mission bay. There have been a ton of complaints to supervisors.
    And even though the FAA controls airspace, in Honolulu an aerial advertising ban passed by the city was upheld by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

  4. Posted by eddy

    Today its a random blimp and a plane for Geico ads. At what point does it stop. Are we ok if we have 4, 8 , 16, 32, …. airships blanketing our sky. Why not just deploy an army of drones to hang outside every office window. wiI’m not, and would prefer zero ads in the air. Or at least have it regulated where the city put some controls on it and maybe earn revenues over it.

  5. Posted by NJ

    “‘Reducing the amount of advertising in the City will help accentuate its distinctive appearance and the character that tourists visit the City to experience.’ Like Fisherman’s Wharf.”
    I would have actually written “Like the Tenderloin?,” which a number of west-Union Square tourist hotels are in or almost in. Yep, we gotta get rid of those durned banner-towing planes to please our tourists, but there’s certainly nothing wrong with bullets flying by their heads and homeless harassing them!
    In any event, does the “City and County of San Francisco” extend to the water north of Fisherman’s Wharf? If not, and even if this measure were enforceable despite federal (FAA) preemption, then the planes could presumably just fly over the water, which I think they largely do anyway.

  6. Posted by SFMichael

    If this ordinance can stop a blimp that has it’s owner’s name on it from flying over the city wouldn’t it also stop any airliner, as they all have their owner’s name on them too?
    I understand what the BoD is trying to do, but this needs to be thought through.

  7. Posted by sfresident

    I find the ad trucks clogging up the streets during rush hour traffic more annoying.

  8. Posted by motomayhem

    what a waste of time

  9. Posted by RobBob

    Please yes, that Geico towing plane annoys me to no end every Giants game time. And you know they are using a loud single engine prop because they want to produce the maximum amount of noise possible so people look at it. Call me a nimby, but I don’t see how these ads help anyone in SF anyway.

  10. Posted by NJ

    “And you know they are using a loud single engine prop because they want to produce the maximum amount of noise possible so people look at it.”
    While I don’t doubt that you’re annoyed, you obviously don’t know much about planes.

  11. Posted by GetOffTheIvy

    They are using an AgCat because it isn’t being use to dust crop right now.
    Dose the City/County control the air space over the bay?

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Recent Articles