MHOA asserts rooftop hoardings pose no safety hazard
By Bhawana Anand - May 23, 2019
The industry body also maintains that digital media will not be a viable substitute for rooftop media
Even as the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) takes a hard stance on the issue of allowing hoardings on rooftops and terraces in Mumbai city, the Mumbai Hoarding Owners’ Association (MHOA) has categorically told Media4Growth that the industry will oppose any step initiated by the urban local body to remove sites on rooftops and terraces. MHOA termed the assertion that those media sites pose safety threat to the public as a fallacy.
Noting that rooftop hoardings were brought back in business in 2014 after obtaining a stay from the court some time after the in-famous Mahim’s Altaf Mansion collapse, Khalid Y. Batliwalla, President, MHOA shared with Media4Growth that, “In a response to an RTI query, it was clarified that the building that had collapsed did not have a hoarding structure on it, whereas the hoarding that was there atop Wing B of the complex was taken down two days prior to the incident. So, it was beyond doubt that the outdoor structure had no part in causing the collapse of the building”. Moreover, he exclaimed that there has never been any report of damage caused by any outdoor structure in Mumbai.
The draft ad policy that await the final nod of the BMC Commissioner allows for digital media to be put up in place of hoardings which Khalid terms as “absolutely unviable” for the industry. “In a country like India where there is vandalism of public property it is unrealistic to plan for expensive digital boards to be placed at ground level where they can be easily damaged”.
As reported earlier, the MHOA had initiated a detailed discussion on the draft Policy Guidelines on the Grant of Permission for Display of Sky-Signs and Advertisement insisting on the inclusion of the format and went to court on the matter. However, that move has not yielded a tangible outcome for the industry.
Khalid maintains that “if the new policy has any clause that is adverse to the trade, that will be challenged in the court by the association”.