By now, after nearly a month of our mayor and council members deliberating, am I safe in assuming that you have heard about the proposed film ordinance? This ordinance will immediately end Oakland’s presence in a future films. I would like to see this bill buried under the weight of the laws and ordinance that still need to be passed and will make a difference in out community. You may be reading this and asking yourself as to how equipped the author is for voicing his opinion in a pertinent way. So I will start with my background.
Starting in 2008, I was the proud creator and owner of a popular YouTube channel which garnered over 15 million views and landed me a spot on the Google payroll. This initial foray into the world of online video is what prompted my interest in Film. Throughout high school, I created a number of short films, many of which went on to tour the Film Festival circuit. In 2011, one of these short films went on to win the Fort Lee Film Festival, the Ridgewood Guild Film Festival, and the Garden State Film Festival, which is the largest international festival in New Jersey. I am now attending Emerson College in Boston Massachusetts where I am a sophomore Film Production major concentrating in Production Design. This year however, I decided to take a leave of absence to work professionally in the industry within New York City and Northern New Jersey. My last job, which just wrapped, was as the Production Designer on a commercial which was commissioned by Hasbro for their 2014 structural reorganization. This commercial is being used as the centerpiece of their 2014 campaign. And mind you, I am not even 20 years old yet.
Now to the matter of the proposed Film Ordinance, in which the borough wants to charge productions $1000 per day of shooting on top of a $200 charge for permits. There are two facets to the situation. For starters, I feel that Oakland would be making a mistake with charging for filming within the borough. Although Oakland is beautiful, it is not necessarily unique. Production companies are comprised of brilliant, quick-thinking men and women. But they are also cheap. The less money that is spent during production, the more money the movie grosses after release. Companies would not think twice about filming in another small town in which they do not have to pay for permits and daily filming. Over the past 6 decades, Oakland has only been used for a handful of major motion pictures and television shows. With the passing of this ordinance, the town would effectively be cutting itself off from any future considerations for on- location shots. Do we want to cut ourselves off from the arts and culture that productions can bring to the area due to an ordinance that may sound good on paper but not in practice? I certainly don’t.
One of the go to arguments that supporters of the ordinance have been using over and over again, is that Oakland needs to be protected from financial losses (ie. police support, road closures, etc.) occurring while production companies are working. However, at the last council meeting on 11/26/13, Mayor Schwagger, while questioning the people around her, dug too deep. What she uncovered was that due to other policies and insurances which are already established, Oakland is reimbursed by productions companies for safety and security purposes. So, after that blast of information was sent over the air waves, I have been left very perplexed. In it’s purest form, This ordinance would be nothing more than a completely unneeded and unwarranted tax. The City of Oakland appears to want a piece of the money pie.
I laugh thinking about Mayor Schwagger leaning over the dais and with her screechy, cackling voice exclaim “That’s my money!” Hmm, on second thought, that would be a great idea for a movie.
In 2010, Governor Christie was a huge proponent of the legislation that was passed and will end tax credits for productions starting in the 2015 fiscal year. Now, more than ever, companies wanting to shoot in New Jersey need all of the help they can get. And while small towns such as Franklin Lakes and Mahwah have already charged films to shoot in their boroughs for years, they have also been, unsurprisingly, home to many fewer productions than Oakland.
Now to continue with the second side of my opinion. We all know how politics work. I am almost certain that all of you, Mayor and Council members, have already solidified your decision in your minds. So, if this ordinance is to be passed, I want to urge you to pay extremely close attention to the wording of it. Councilman Jensen and Councilwoman Coira were quoted in last week’s edition of the Suburban News showing objections to the wording of the ordinance, and rightly so. As it stands right now, the town would be able choose, on a whim, who has to pay for filming rights and who does not. So, I’d like to present you with an idea, that in my opinion, would allow the ordinance to be passed without needlessly harming all artists.
SAG-AFTRA budget break down:
Theatrical: greater than $2.5 million Low Budget: less than $2.5 million
Modified Low Budget: less than $625 thousand
Ultra-Low Budget: less than $200 thousand
Short Film: less than $50 thousand
Student Film: less than $35 thousand
I’d like to see the wording of the ordinance changed to exempt any production with a budget under $200,000 from paying to film. I am currently in the pre-production stage of a short film which I will be directing next summer. I am lucky enough to have already secured some investors and funding. However, with the preliminary budget that has been laid out, I see a real possibility that the production may fall into a budgetary realm where Oakland would want to charge for permits and filming should we choose to film in the town. As an independent filmmaker, I can say with certainty that the charges would be crippling to the production. While we will not be utilizing rows of trailers and causing the borough problems, I do know that the crew would be large and it’s presence would be felt within the town. I do not want my producer to have to make the decision to film in a different borough when it could be possible to feature the beauty and atmosphere that this town has.
By wording the ordinance in such a way, Oakland would not be causing as much harm as it could be. It would allow productions of all shapes and sizes to continue to film here.
I want to stress however that this thought is secondary to my opinion that the Film Ordinance should not be passed. As Councilwoman Coira said in the Suburban News, the ordinance truly is “nine pages of red tape”. Instead of concerning yourselves over those nine pages, you should be trying to get productions to come to our wonderful town. I believe the town members would rather watch a movie made from a 90 page script rather than read 9 pages governmental hot air. We should be encouraging all sorts and sizes of film and television productions to come to Oakland and shoot. We shouldn’t look at these productions as nuisances that we have to deal with. We should welcome them with open arms and see the good that they can bring to us. If film executives can acknowledge little old Oakland as a viable place to shoot, we, the people of Oakland should be proud to have them here.
It appears that this ordinance is nothing more than an attempt to show the public that you, the lawmakers of this town, are attempting to fill the coffers. In reality though, we can see that it is just words. The Hunger Games production that filmed here back in January was present for just 4 days. Frankly, this ordinance would effectively raise little to no money. Instead, these movies will just pass Oakland by on their way to another town. Also, why should the money from these shoots go directly to the town, when their presence and money can be used to actually make a difference in the lives of the men and women who run local businesses. Whether it be from food services, expendables purchasing or an assortment of other activities, the money from these productions always finds a way into the local economy of the shooting location. I believe that if the people of Oakland realize this axiom, they would much rather support the introduction of films into the town rather than this ordinance.
Oakland needs these film productions. It deserves them. Please don’t take that away from our community.
Submitted by Kevin Dusenberry
I am in agreement with Mr. Dusenbury on his pro filming appeal. We should be making the town as “Film Friendly ” as possible. Any additional commerce would certainly be beneficial to the local businesses. It would be a good way to get Oakland a little more “buzz” and introduce new people to our town. Maybe the new Chamber of Commerce could think about endorsing this idea.
The Oakland taxpayer should not bear the costs associated with filming such as police (traffic control) or DPW (pedestrian barricades). If they choose to shoot here then they should pay all costs involved with the shoot. If they don’t like it then let them go somewhere else. Oakland can be “Film Friendly” but without the taxpayer bearing the costs. A Permit should also be required but only if our DPW and Police services are needed.
As the author of this article I would like to clear up a few things for the commenter, “Sam”. As it stands now, film production companies are ALREADY held responsible for cleanup and hired safety costs. This has been covered in another long standing ordinance, although the name of it I cannot remember at this time. Oakland did not have to pay for cleanup or police protection at both the ‘Hunger Game’ shoot and the filming on Rt. 202 between Oakland and Mahwah. In essence the town loses no money on film productions as things stand now. Know here’s the real kicker; Oakland wants to pass this film ordinance for the sole purpose of MAKING money from these shoots. They are basically playing up to the greedy politician stereotype. They are trying to get support for this ordinance by talking up the aspect that the town will have money to fill the coffers. Not only would this drive production companies away from Oakland but it will also hurt Oakland’s already crumbling business district. Why should money from films go directly to the town? I mean, we all know they are going to raise taxes on us next year anyway. The money from these movies is better off being spent at local businesses when they come to shoot here. The Mayor and Coulcil just want to pass a glorified ordinance for the sake of taxing movie productions and the artists and cultures that come with them. Oakland doesn’t need that.
Large film production companies have on location catering trucks and portable sanitation facilities for everyone’s convenience therefore there is very little benefit to our local businesses. If a shoot is going to occur on private property and all equipment and vehicles are on same, then no permit should be required. However, if public property is to be used in any manner or fashion then a permit shall be required with the proceeds going into the borough general fund for the benefit of it’s citizens. The permit is in addition to any and all reimbursement for expenses incurred by borough services.
Catering trucks 9 times out of 10 will stock catered food that was prepared and purchased by a local business. By doing it this way, productions can supply the freshest foods and the trucks do not have to be refrigerated. I’m currently a production assistant on a large film shooting in NYC and I am helping in the crafty division. They have a row of food trucks each contains different foods. All of the cuisine was purchased from local businesses. Film sites aren’t run like a High School Cafeteria. Aramark isn’t around to magically deliver frozen food.
I have no major qualms over charging $200 for the acquisition of a permit. My problem is with the $1000 a day charge for shooting that Oakland wants to collect. That is an unnecessary, and quite frankly, a ludicrous tax that equates to stealing. They would be taxing the production company simply because it is a production company. If you look very closely and pay attention to the wording of the proposed ordinance one can’t help but see the similarities to some of the taxes Great Britain imposed on the colonies. So if that was bad then, and the cause for the revolutionary war and the formation of America, why should it be acceptable today? It shouldn’t. And it won’t.
There should be no “free ride” for out of town film producers no matter how worthy the cause. I pay dearly in taxes for what Oakland has to offer and so should they. Permit fees should be established with a much lower fee for residents.