Poverty, Planning & Politics

The catch is that KFC would have "Re-Freshed by KFC" painted over every pothole they fix. So, let's weigh the pros and cons of this, shall we?

The pro, and it's a large pro, is that the city would have all of its pothole repairs covered free of charge, and fixing potholes is not cheap.

The cons however, are a little more numerous, but perhaps less significant and based partially on skepticism. For one, would KFC still accept the deal if the city tried to include regulations in it to ensure that the potholes were fixed up to standard instead of just being filled with asphalt? If not, would the city end up accepting the deal anyway without the regulations?

Also, sure people are used to seeing advertising on billboards and signs while driving, but would they be taken off guard if there was advertising on the road? Would they think that they had just missed an important road icon such as merge arrows? Could these cause accidents?

And, if the city is going to open up the roads for advertising now anyway, then is the cost of filling the pothole really enough to cover road advertising space for an apparently limitless amount of time? Should the cities just steal the idea from KFC and open up road advertising space over potholes in a bidding process to get a better deal from another company? Should there be such a thing as road advertising space at all? Are there too many ads on public property already? Could the cities perhaps give free billboard space for a set amount of time proportional to the amount of potholes filled instead?

So, what do you think? If you were a transportation planner in one of these cities, would you welcome KFC with open arms, or would you tell Colonel Sanders to stick with chicken?

- David