Bummed Out at Ad Choices

It's hard to judge whether this is comparatively better or worse than using a homeless person's photo to sell lofts, but just to pile on "Chris" for his massively ill-concieved ad, the line at the bottom that is blurred in the photo reads:

"Tenancy limited to creative professionals and artisans"

It's one thing to advertise that you can only rent residential space to people would will also have an accessory work-use in the space (or visa-versa) if the zoning code limits the legal occupancy, but that's certainly not the way he's worded it here. Maybe this is a half-assed mis-statement of that, but it just as easily could also be a whole-ass statement of "no kids & no poor people--college-educated only, please" which is completely illegal. Normally, I might be tempted to give someone the benefit of the doubt here, but there's not a lot of indication in Chris' ad that we all ought to be so obliging.

Here's hoping someone from the City Attorney's office caught this ad, too. Maybe they can clarify whether zoning for the 1617 Cosmo St. property he shows in the ad would necessitate a combined live/work occupant.

It shows that Silver Lake is threatened by downtown. Yahoo!

The ad copy is pretty low, offensive, and, at the bottom, not even true: so, there are no homeless people at all in Silverlake? Not likely.

Maybe this was an advanced application of irony: using highly unsophisticated copy to sell "sophisticated" lofts. I assume the ad was meant to create attention, and I assume it will backfire on them. I don't know of any "artist" that will hew to the anti-homeless message put forth here.

Oops! Silver Lake, not Silverlake.

The LA City Nerd will not be mad at me now.

What they couldn't find someone shooting up or taking a leak for the photo? INCREDIBLE!

Makes me glad they're in Silver Lake and not in DTLA.

The homeless situation, tragic as it is, should at well serve to keep the least compassionate away from downtown...

Eric:

Thanks for posting on this topic. Over the past two days I have been surprised and heartened to see such a strong response to this disgusting ad. I think one reason people Downtown have been so clear in their revulsion to it is because we generally like the LA Downtown News and were rather shocked to see such a slam against Downtown in that paper. It is sort of like having your best friend sucker-punch you in the eye.

Following is the response I made to Sue Laris' (LADN Editor) semi-apology on newdowntown.com:

Dear Sue Laris:

It is good to see that you responded on behalf of LA Downtown News on this thread. I am pleased that LADN pays attention to things like this. That said, however, I have a few significant issues with your statement here on this thread. First, a conversation with an attorney about suitability of publishing or not publishing such an ad should have been held before such ad was in fact printed. Being in the Editor's chair I am sure you are well aware that the damage was done the moment the newspaper left the LADN presses and hit the street. That ad most certainly should never appear in print again... but it already is out there. Whatever fallout will happen is now well in motion.

Second, it is heartening to see that your staff gave thought to obscuring the face of the person lying in the doorway. That is cold comfort though, as it is not the identity of the person that makes the abysmally negative statement, but the mere presence of such an exploitative, tasteless and unfathomably insensitive graphic used to support such a negative ad. Seeing that photo and the ad copy together made me think of another infamously disgusting hate ad, the Willie Horton ad that George H.W. Bush's campaign used to smear Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election. That ad, while effective, created near universal revulsion toward that type of smear program. That happened nearly 20 years ago. I had hoped that we had all learned from that example of horrible judgement. Just because it was effective does not mean it was (or is) right. Those in senior positions within media operations should know better than to perpetrate such garbage.

Third and finally, even though LADN may have had First Amendment concerns, which should have been resolved and the ad refused, running that ad would be morally repugnant anywhere, but particularly in this wonderfully diverse, progressively improving downtown. Los Angeles is uniquely positioned worldwide as a trendsetter, and putting this ad on the street gives us as a city a black eye. We deserve much better and insist on LADN running a formal apology in the next issue, in a location where it will be seen clearly, for "mistakenly" accepting this offensive filth masquerading as a commercial ad. The LADN works hard to present the renaissance in Downtown in a favorable light, even to the point of occasionally pandering to development interests here. To run this contradictory ad not only suggests that LADN suffers from serious editorial judgement issues, but also casts the wonderful neighborhoods of Hollywood and Silver Lake in a very poor light.

Sincerely,

Ken Parsons Downtown Los Angeles

i can't believe people aren't falling over laughting at the idea there are any sort of first amendment concerns with regard to a newspaper deciding whether or not to accept advertising. it's like the folks loitering on main street claiming i'm violating their privacy rights by taking pictures of the street.

Yes, the first amendment is about government censorship. You would think that newspaper people would know that. Pretty silly and more than likely the mood in the room was; how can we explain this to our readers if we run it. This is an ethics issue, not a legal one. If they had a policy about it, it would not have been a question in the first place. Let's hope they now have a policy in place regarding ugly, divisive advertising that targets the powerless and inflames hatred, or next week we will see ads for the downtown nazi cleanup squad showing teenagers with baseball bats roaming the streets.

. . . s'been fun chatting . . .

I'm actually glad Downtown News posted the ad. If it would have been snubbed, we never would have read it. By all of us reacting, the poster themselves know that Downtown has a deep rooted culture of people that aren't just here cause it's trendy to live in a faux loft, but because we want to be here. Downtown L.A. is unique that it is, in a sense, the frontier of city living; it is a place where it is not perfect and clean. Because we care and allow ourselves to be challenged by the diversity in this part of L.A. we will be the ones to find the answers to solve our social problems and not just try to sweep them under the rug as the rest of the city does everytime they make a midnight run by dumping their homeless here. Sure it's not easy, but we accept that it is real.