Kentucky Fried Potholes and other sponsored public works

wazilla

Feral wrote: »

wazilla wrote: »

The Cat wrote: »

If its really that bad on the roads over there, I'm going to stop right here to say "neener neener this is what happens when you insist on not paying any taxes".

Hahaha classy.

And yet true.

And I'm with Glal and Squid. I have no problem with corporate sponsorship of otherwise public works (as when a big corp buys a stadium) but in this case, road markings should be reserved for traffic instructions.

Definitely true.

I just don't understand why KFC would be too terribly inclined to do a wonderful job filling potholes.

Feral

Question: if KFC wanted to pay the city $$$$ to put red octagonal signs at major traffic intersections with the letters "KFC in block white text... would that be okay?

How about yellow triangles that said "YIELD for KFC?

Or, ooooh, I know. Black and white cars driving around with KFC logos on the side and flashing lights on top. Maybe they could wear blue uniforms and use hand signs and a whistle to direct people to the nearest KFC.

Yeah, I'm being stupid, but there's a reason that commercial signage and road signage have to match different specifications, because we need to be able to filter out nonrelevant from relevant signage rapidly while driving.

Nobody is going to honestly mistake a KFC logo for a road sign, assuming they could see it clearly. But if they can't, they might be distracted trying to make it out from a distance. "What the hell does that say?" You can't guarantee that people from other countries will know what a KFC is, even if they learned what STOP and XING meant before coming over. And I know that I tend to ignore things I think are advertisements - if my brain starts to see "white diamond in road" as "advertisement," is that going to slow my reaction time to legitimate asphalt signage?

redx

particularlly in a city with lots of tourists(some of which would be international), who don't have any clue where they are going without having to worry about unfamiliar markings on the roadways. I can totally see Chicago's reluctance to allow big KFC logos on their roads.

The Cat wrote: »

Somewhere, William Gibson is cackling like a loon at this.

are you referring to a particular instance? I'm pretty well versed in Gibson's stuff and don't get anything specific enough to cause said cackling, and this really strikes me as more something out of Neal Stephenson's work.

Local H Jay

free abortions brought to you by ballpark franks

Duffel

The Cat wrote: »

If its really that bad on the roads over there, I'm going to stop right here to say "neener neener this is what happens when you insist on not paying any taxes".

Well, my state's so poor that even if the tax rate was like 90% we probably still wouldn't have enough money to fix the potholes, to say nothing of how little money the local/county level of organisation has.

And while this definitely isn't my field, I didn't think "pothole money" came from the feds - at least not within city limits. But even our interstates suck around here, so who knows.

Daedalus - that's not a pothole, it's a sinkhole. They're pothole's meaner cousins with a crack problem and a prison record.

Dman

Feral wrote: »

Question: if KFC wanted to pay the city $$$$ to put red octagonal signs at major traffic intersections with the letters "KFC in block white text... would that be okay?

How about yellow triangles that said "YIELD for KFC?

Or, ooooh, I know. Black and white cars driving around with KFC logos on the side and flashing lights on top. Maybe they could wear blue uniforms and use hand signs and a whistle to direct people to the nearest KFC.

Yeah, I'm being stupid, but there's a reason that commercial signage and road signage have to match different specifications, because we need to be able to filter out nonrelevant from relevant signage rapidly while driving.

Nobody is going to honestly mistake a KFC logo for a road sign, assuming they could see it clearly. But if they can't, they might be distracted trying to make it out from a distance. "What the hell does that say?" You can't guarantee that people from other countries will know what a KFC is, even if they learned what STOP and XING meant before coming over. And I know that I tend to ignore things I think are advertisements - if my brain starts to see "white diamond in road" as "advertisement," is that going to slow my reaction time to legitimate asphalt signage?

People who don't know the roads won't be any more distracted by a white KFC than they would be by a pothole. Idiots are always swerving all over the road to avoid potholes, I don't see how tiny white lettering could make the situation worse than it is.

Scooter

Yea, I'm going to go with a no on this, on the basis of it being a potentially dangerous distraction. Also on the basis that I don't trust companies to do it consistently or well - what happens if a town stops taxing money to fix roads on the assumption that some fast food place will, but then the fast food place gets too busy or poor to bother, or does half-assed jobs on it? And then the town has no money for it either and nothing gets fixed.

iTunesIsEvil

Scooter wrote: »

what happens if a town stops taxing money to fix roads on the assumption that some fast food place will

I'm kind of hoping this isn't a real concern of yours. It seems awfully far-fetched.

Scooter

A city will always take in money, but some small town or whatever? I could totally see them making budget decisions based on this kinda stuff.

Cervetus

A town might stop funneling money into a pothole fund and spend it on something else, but I find it hard to believe that they'd actually lower taxes.

iTunesIsEvil

I find it pretty tough to believe that a town would go "Hey, KFC is running this promo where they'll fix potholes! Glory, we're saved! We don't need to budget for fixing potholes any longer!"

Couscous

I think you are underestimating how stupid small towns are.

iTunesIsEvil

Couscous wrote: »

I think you are underestimating how stupid small towns are.

I understand that I'm probably giving some small, back-asswards town the benefit of the doubt here, but I have such a hard time fathoming that a group in charge of budgeting for repairing roads would look at a fast food chain's advertising scheme and decide that that's good enough reason to put that money elsewhere.

KevinNash

Scooter wrote: »

A city will always take in money, but some small town or whatever? I could totally see them making budget decisions based on this kinda stuff.

Small town? LoL. Dude Los Angeles does shit like that all the time. They don't understand the concept of rainy day funds and are consistently in the red.

That doesn't make the idea bad though, it's just that legislators are morons.

Kipling217

Fuck, why should KFC pay to have pot-holes filled? Isn't this why KFC pays corporate taxes? Paying to have the name of your company advertised on/near public roads I can understand, but are they not essentialy paying twice for good roads?

BubbaT

Endomatic wrote: »

I could see someone in PETA just spray painting some black over the logos. Everyone wins that way... except KFC.

Also, even if they do drop it, at least you got some potholes fixed out of it. No harm done.

They're trying desperately to improve their public image and continue to advertise. This is pretty savvy from a strict marketing perspective.

So KFC would be trying to improve public road conditions and PETA would just be dicks.

I can't imagine anyone mistaking the KFC logos for some official signage. In LA movie studios put up directional signs all over the place without making drivers any worse than they already are. And even if they did, "KFC" would tell drivers to do what, exactly?

Plus official signs aren't always crystal clear either

Spoiler:

RiemannLives

KevinNash wrote: »

This seems like a great idea to me. I'd probably billboard my house if somebody offered to pay my mortgage. How far should cities go to reduce the cost of stuff like this. We already do stadiums. How about publicly sponsored roads and highways? Street signs? Bathrooms by Charmin? National Parks? The possibilities are endless.

I have no problem with KFC and a local government coming to an arrangement like the pothole thing. If both sides agree no worries.

However, I think you are completely overlooking why KFC is doing this and why public / private cooperation of this kind will always be extremely limited in scale. There is a damn good reason KFC is offering to fix potholes as opposed to resurfacing an entire street or constructing a new park: fixing potholes is a relatively cheap process that can be paid for from their advertising budget.

The advertising budget of even an extremely large corporation (like the one that owns KFC among other fast food chains) would never be able to cover the cost of public works of a significant size. Or at least they would never blow their entire budget for a national PR campaign on resurfacing a single street.

Governments and PR departments simply do not operate on the same scale. Consider that this is a major PR campaign on the part of a corporation and they are offering to do what is essentially the absolute bottom-rung smallest road-maintenance project possible.

The Cat

Duffel wrote: »

The Cat wrote: »

If its really that bad on the roads over there, I'm going to stop right here to say "neener neener this is what happens when you insist on not paying any taxes".

Well, my state's so poor that even if the tax rate was like 90% we probably still wouldn't have enough money to fix the potholes, to say nothing of how little money the local/county level of organisation has.

And while this definitely isn't my field, I didn't think "pothole money" came from the feds - at least not within city limits. But even our interstates suck around here, so who knows.

Daedalus - that's not a pothole, it's a sinkhole. They're pothole's meaner cousins with a crack problem and a prison record.

I went with the pithy one-liner, but road repairs would usually be from either state taxes or landowner rates here, so I assume similar things go on over there. That said, I'm recalling an ongoing problem with lack of infrastructure investment at high levels in the US. Something about collapsing bridges?

t red: hah, you're right, mixed up my 'spunky courier' characters

Improvolone

Dman wrote: »

I love this idea. Potholes are fucking annoying and dangerous and it seems every city I've lived in wages a constantly loosing battle against them.

It's not like mcDonalds is offering to fund schools if they get to put a restaurant in the cafeteria (D:). KFC is fixing potholes, it's hard to screw up a job like that, little white logo's aren't a big deal and if KFC stops doing it their logos will wear away from traffic.

Fast food "restaurants" are already in some schools.

Duffel

The Cat wrote: »

I went with the pithy one-liner, but road repairs would usually be from either state taxes or landowner rates here, so I assume similar things go on over there. That said, I'm recalling an ongoing problem with lack of infrastructure investment at high levels in the US. Something about collapsing bridges?

Oh, it's definitely a problem. My point was that even on a local level there's not a lot my area can do about it because nobody around here makes any money. And, as you mentioned, assistance for stuff like this has been pretty slow from the federal level as well, although hopefully that will change soon if the stimulus gets rolling.

It's the same problem as we have with the school system. Local level is functionally broke, feds give what they can but it's not enough.

The Cat

Duffel wrote: »

The Cat wrote: »

I went with the pithy one-liner, but road repairs would usually be from either state taxes or landowner rates here, so I assume similar things go on over there. That said, I'm recalling an ongoing problem with lack of infrastructure investment at high levels in the US. Something about collapsing bridges?

Oh, it's definitely a problem. My point was that even on a local level there's not a lot my area can do about it because nobody around here makes any money. And, as you mentioned, assistance for stuff like this has been pretty slow from the federal level as well, although hopefully that will change soon if the stimulus gets rolling.

It's the same problem as we have with the school system. Local level is functionally broke, feds give what they can but it's not enough.

See, this is the kind of thing that scares me when people here talk about getting rid of either the local or state governments entirely (as they tend to do whenever one level does something they don't like, but its been more frequent lately). Either one disappearing would be troublesome, but the Feds are taking over so much money stuff that the lower levels are losing perceived power.

DragonPup

Gosling wrote: »

KFC, if you'd like to fill in potholes in Watertown, you can start with the potholes in your own fucking parking lot.

My Watertown doesn't have a KFC. But we do have roads badly in need of repair.

Duffel

The Cat wrote: »

See, this is the kind of thing that scares me when people here talk about getting rid of either the local or state governments entirely (as they tend to do whenever one level does something they don't like, but its been more frequent lately). Either one disappearing would be troublesome, but the Feds are taking over so much money stuff that the lower levels are losing perceived power.

How could they get rid of local and state governments even if it were a good idea? Would the feds just appoint people to certain regions and send them out?

Derrick

Louisvillian here, and I think it's an awesome idea. Honestly most of the roads here aren't too bad (at least compared to some other places I've lived) but hey, if KFC wants to throw in to make my town slightly better, then I'm all for it.

So far as street markings, heh. Well I just have to laugh. Most people don't even realize that a white dotted line means traffic on both ends go the same way (ala one way street). I seriously doubt the general populace is going to be overly concerned about a spray painted logo.

Duki

Does America even have landowner rates?

That's how we mostly pay for our roads too, afaik. That and taxes on petrol.

MichaelLC

Duki wrote: »

Does America even have landowner rates?

That's how we mostly pay for our roads too, afaik. That and taxes on petrol.

Yeah, we have property taxes by county (area consisting of several cities), which in part go to fund local things like roads, schools, etc. We have federal, state and local taxes on gas too, along with state and usually city stickers for our cars.

Then if you're lucky enough to live in one of the states that have toll roads, you get to pay for those too, which are supposed to go to the highways, but it's questionable.

The Cat

Duffel wrote: »

The Cat wrote: »

See, this is the kind of thing that scares me when people here talk about getting rid of either the local or state governments entirely (as they tend to do whenever one level does something they don't like, but its been more frequent lately). Either one disappearing would be troublesome, but the Feds are taking over so much money stuff that the lower levels are losing perceived power.

How could they get rid of local and state governments even if it were a good idea? Would the feds just appoint people to certain regions and send them out?

Well yeah, for some things (development approvals, for instance, NRM stuff etc) you'd have to. But they tend to prefer to run everything from canberra so I know it'd be a clusterfuck for years before they got the implementation sorted.