Update: According to a city official the Project Team (Special projects under the Mayor) jointly agreed to the locations with Midco That decision and proposal went to the Parks board who approved the location. After approval by the parks board, they were installed.
 
Signs, signs, everywhere there are signs! (26th & Western, Entry to Center, 22nd & Western)
So foot soldiers have been asking me the same question, does the sponsorship agreement with MIDCO include the entire park? No, it doesn’t. In fact the upgrades to the park came out of the parks budget, we paid for them and the building. MIDCO’s sponsorship is only to offset the operations of the facility and pay for certain equipment in the facility, it includes NOTHING in the park or maintenance of the park. So why the big signs? According to the sponsorship agreement (section 7, DOC:MidcoSponsorshipAgreement) The entry sign (to the parking lot) and the two signs on the building are well within the agreement, also any signage inside the building.
So what’s up with the park signage? Is MIDCO stretching the rules a bit? And better yet, why did the city allow this? Who saw this signage before it was placed? Naming Commission? Parks and Rec Board? City Council? Planning Commission?
The signage looks like MIDCO is sponsoring the entire park, and quite frankly, I think the signage looks gaudy in a public park.
This administration would sell the shirt off our backs if he knew he could get a couple bucks from it.
This is utter crap. MIDCO is getting a free ride of marketing on the taxpayers’ backs with signage all over this public park. Only IDIOT public employees without any concept of ethics and decorum would have approved these signs. Don Kearney ought to go down in flames for this one. The depth of slime MMMs City Directors and Managers will wallow in to court their corporate cronies & business blowhards is beyond belief.
Thank you so much for commenting on this. I was disappointed to see the sign at the corner of 26th and Western. I thought the sign was very out of place. I have always enjoyed driving by that lovely green space and hate to see it marred by a Midco sign.
what rules? I am sure mmm said it was ok so it is ok
It’s pretty lame. I guess I wouldn’t be opposed to the outer signs if they had in large lettering ‘Spellerberg Park’ with midco in small lettering along the bottom.
Because to most people – including visitors to your fair hamlet – the identity of the park is wholly subordinate to the name of the amenity located at said park.
Signs exist for people who don’t know where they’re going, not for people who do. And now, to the masses, Spellerberg Park is just “that place where the aquatic center is located.”
Yeah, hopefully a local Clark Griswold will wipe out that sign next Christmas season with his metal saucer as he comes flying down the recreational slope which is directly behind the sign:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6QzkzhmpI0
Spellerberg has much much more meaning and history to the city of SF than midco. Spellerberg was the father of our lark system. To give the park less meaning on a sign to midco only shows how low and despicable our city has become. I have cut ties with midco as a cable tv provider. Too damn expensive when. I can still grab TV signals for free with an antenna. My next move , especially after seeing that sign, is going to be to cut the cord with midco as my internet provider. Any ideas on an alternative I will explore. I just know midco has got to go.