Where is the dialogue about postering?

Last month, the Court of Quebec ruled that the City’s anti-postering bylaws violates Montrealers’ freedom of expression. The ruling would imply that the City must either change the bylaw that currently prohibits postering on public street furniture, or supply a vast quantity of dedicated places for citizens to place public notices.

Fortunately, it seemed that there is already a solution in the works: on July 5th, just 10 days before the court ruling, the Direction de la culture et du patrimoine presented a project to install hundreds of dedicated postering collars and/or kiosks in the Plateau and Ville Marie boroughs.

The city’s proposal acknowledged their obligation to provide a space for public notices, as per a 1993 ruling by the Supreme court of Canada. This priority is balanced against concerns about tidiness and the cost of cleaning the street furniture (it is estimated that the Plateau borough alone spends $100,000 per year cleaning hydro poles). The two boroughs currently provide a total of 10 dedicated postering kiosks which the court found was insufficient.

This new willingness to see postering as an essential communications tool for community and artistic groups rather than as a kind of vandalism happened to coincide with the court ruling and it seemed that all the elements were coming together to spark a productive dialogue about the place for posters in the city.

Then the City went tight-lipped on the issue.

When I contacted the office that has been working on the postering issue for months, I was told that they would not comment until the City decided whether to contest the court decision.

“En premier lieu, la Ville doit décider si elle portera le jugement en appel, sinon, elle devra ensuite déterminer quelle sera la solution retenue en matière d’affichage libre sur tout son territoire” wrote Gonzalo Nunez, a communications officer with the City of Montreal.

Even the proposal that was previously made public is off limits for discussion.

One question raised by our readers is whether legalizing postering will simply create one more place for private companies to plaster their advertising. Is the City able to make a distinction between community, cultural, and commercial promotion, with the objective of creating dedicated spaces for community and cultural posters?

Unfortunately questions which would shed light on the complexity of this issue that the city must juggle remain unanswered.

Why are dedicated postering kiosks, like this one on University street, seen as “tidier” than posters on hydro poles? No comment.

In fact, the only concrete information I was able to ascertain was that the City will continue to fine people for postering on public property, a position they can apparently uphold for the next 6 months:

“Il est important de rappeler que les dispositions sur l’utilisation du domaine public sont toujours applicables et valides, tandis que celles visées par le jugement demeurent en vigueur pour les 6 prochains mois,” wrote Nunez.

The city’s unwillingness to discuss the issue – even the proposal that was already made public – would seem to portray the decision-makers as inflexible, insensitive and closed to public input. Yet when I spoke with Hilary Leftick, Executive Producer of Pop Montreal and member of COLLE she told me that the Direction de la culture et du patrimoine was quite willing to discuss the needs of the arts community in order to develop a viable solution.

Frankly, the only conclusion I’ve come to right now is that the City is botching their communications job (and not only on this dossier).

I hope to have more info by the end of September when the City must decide whether to contest the court decision or address the underlying issue about expression in public space.