So the possibility that the space remains ad-free doesn't exist?

Everything is a choice, we don't HAVE to accept these shitty ads everywhere.

> So the possibility that the space remains ad-free doesn't exist?

It does exist, but then the cost of the bike sharing would have be borne by

a) users of the bike system - this would impact ridership and equity of access. b) local govt - budget would have to come from somewhere.

considering b) would likely mean that the project wouldn't get past planning, really a) is the only alternative.

Everything is a tradeoff.

From my perspective, I'll take shitty ads if the money earned from those ads is spent on significant quality of life improvements. Same reason I support legalization and taxation of gambling, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc where the revenues pay for schools, social services, etc.

This is shitty equity too though, I can't ride bikes but I still have to look at your ads and make do with worse economies of scale for public transportation that's accesible to the disabled. If bike share is a public good. It should be paid for out of public funds, if the city decides to sell advertising rights in public spaces then it can. Those two ideas need not be linked, money is fungible!

These are assertions but that's insufficient to make policy. To make policy you often need to tie things together because constituencies will want to keep net costs low as they trial programs.

If public funds pay for it, you personally (assuming you pay taxes) are also paying for the program, but this time with real dollars instead of attention.

> money is fungible

What?

But I don't want to sell my attention! At least not at the crappy valuation the bike advertisers offer.

Money being fungible means that one dollar is as good as another. It all goes in a big pile for the budget. In other words, you don't have to match up your revenue sources with your costs (like bikes with advertising), though this is frequently used for the purpose of trying to justify one thing or another.

Money can be moved.

From where? You might live in a flush city, with lots of extra discretionary $$ flowing around, but most cities in the US are nearly bankrupt, and leveraged to the hilt on providing basic services. This is the definition of a "luxury belief", thinking the average city can just find money and put it towards removing ads that pay for services.

> This bike share scheme is only possible because the city traded away its outdoor ad space.

Yes, it's a trade off. I wish my city had free bike share.

It's not "ad space", it's our cities. Why is it even possible for them to "sell ad space" to private business? Should be made illegal.

We want to live in nice towns not in cyberpunk hellscapes where we can't even cross a street without being violently bombarded with advertising. A business should be able to put up a sign on its own building and that's about it.

How can a city own all the ad space when there's private property? What stops a property owner from putting up a billboard and renting it out?

Laws against privately putting up a billboard anywhere that can be seen from a public space, without prior municipal approval?

This seems like an odd question to ask, many many cities have bylaws regulating even smaller stuff, and they are often discussed on HN.

So the monopoly isn't just there because the city happens to own all the existing ad space, but is rather something legally created, and then sold to a private company.

Well yes, everything in a city is 'legally created'.