KEY POINTS:
Auckland deputy mayor Bruce Hucker is now paying a particularly cruel price for his part in the drive to rid the city of billboards - and in passing - cut the ground out from under a $70 million dollar industry.
Last week Hucker's face was on a billboard
in Fanshawe St with the slogan "Business Class travel is worth it". Another sign has gone up down on Dominion Rd - one of Auckland's main shopping routes - and there's more to come.
Auckland City Councillors have been facing strife since they changed council rules so they could plan and approve their own overseas trips.
It's not the greatest example of good governance.
And Hucker, who flies business class again shortly, this time to Guangzhou, has been singled out as one of the key beneficiaries from the council's rather loose travel policy.
It's hardly surprising that he's now tasting the brunt of a backlash against the proposed ban.
The problem with the council's planned billboard crackdown is the way in which it was conceived and is being rammed into law.
Most of the councillors who are pushing for the ban argue it is in response to a big increase in the number of complaints received about signs in the past three years. A table on the council's website shows it received 428 complaints in 2004 - this rose to 632 in 2005 and topped out at 745 complaints last year.
But the council's analysis indicates that many of the complaints were provoked by real estate signs - which tend to be at the small end of the spectrum - and sandwich boards, the use of which has already been subject to a crackdown. There is little breakdown provided over the other reasons which inspired Auckland City residents - if indeed that's where the complaints did originate - to get on the blower to council administrators.
The analysis shows there were 586 "signs incidents" last year compared to 606 complaints over dumping, 329 over obstructions to footpaths, and 158 street trading complaints.
No separate analysis has been posted which shows the nature of billboard complaints in comparison to those about signs.
The analysis tends to suggest that just 157 of the 745 complaints last year related to billboards - but as no breakdown is provided, it is hard to work out whether the grounds the council's majority faction is relying on to scupper a multi-million-dollar industry are solid or simply the result of political payback time.
There is no associated economic analysis report on the website which examines the impact of the proposed ban on the outdoor advertising sector and the Auckland businesses which rely on signs and billboards to drive sales.
The draft bylaws - which outline the changes to the respective sections dealing with signs and billboards have already been approved by a majority of the city's councilors.
The council has also stacked the panel which will conduct hearings on the issue in April with councillors who have already voted in favour of the draft bylaw which tends to indicate the consultation process is a mirage.
The National Party suspects the billboard ban is politically motivated rather than driven by any concerns for the aesthetics of a city. Auckland's city council fathers have, after all, approved all sorts of building monstrosities in recent years with little consideration for heritage issues.
Wayne Mapp - who is the National Party's Auckland spokesman - reckons the draft changes to the bylaws which cover advertising signs and billboards are geared at one thing only: Stopping National from making a repeat performance of the controversial billboard campaign it used at the 2005 election to differentiate its then leader Don Brash from Helen Clark.
Certainly the changes will impact on political advertising.
National - or for that matter Labour or any other party - will be restricted to a two-month window before the general election in which they will be able to post outdoor signs in the city.
This would rule out the opportunistic use of the witty billboards that National used late last year and well before the 2005 election to differentiate its leader's brand from its opponent's style.
Marketers are not taking the council's ban lying down - and nor should they.
Ad Truck chief executive Dave Good has bought the rights to distribute "billboard trucks" which feature scrolling billboards on two sides and the rear of the truck. The plan is to move large trucks around Auckland stopping at single locations for up to 20 minutes at a time.
This new business falls outside the draft bylaws.
And Good's new venture is not the only game in town on this score.
Advertising slogans painted on Smart cars by companies like NZ Post's Kiwibank are a growing business. Kiwibank used Smart Move Media's 25-strong fleet for a two-month campaign.
Winston Peters' NZ First used a truck to carry a mobile billboard advertising his party during the 2005 election campaign.
Act leader Rodney Hide simply had his Mercedes Benz Smart car wrapped in his own (much larger then) image.
The amount of gas the mobile advertising vehicles will burn as companies use them to get round the council's ban will inevitably upset greenies. It's pretty daft on economic grounds - but what else is left when the council has already made up its mind on billboards?
Businesses taking issue with the council's proposals have just two weeks to file a submission, which can be found at aucklandcity.govt.nz.
The ban will not come into force until May so there's plenty of time yet for businesses to make their opposition felt.
Just use a billboard.
