[Durham INC] billboard industry is trying to overturn Durham's ban on ele...
TheOcean1 at aol.com
TheOcean1 at aol.com
Mon Jan 19 15:15:34 EST 2009
John
I don't recall anyone saying hush up, or anything like that. I merely
explained why I personally have been reserving judgement, where I'm usually quick
with my opinion.
In truth, I hope no one hushes up, and I applauded the thoughtful dialogue.
All I've been saying is that I can't form a final opinion until all the facts
are known.
I'd be curious as to how you'd answer the following:
If Fairway offered to take down all of their signs in exchange for one
single electronic board, would you vote for that, John?
That would effectively eliminate more than half the billboards we have now.
I know you don't expect them to offer that, and neither do I. The real
question is what will they offer, and right now that's anyone's guess.
I'm not going to form an opinion based on anyone's guess, as we will know
the facts soon enough.
Care to answer that question John?
Bill
In a message dated 1/19/2009 2:53:18 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
bwatu at yahoo.com writes:
folks,
This isn't complicated. The billboard industry is trying to overturn our
current ban on electronic billboards in Durham. That's it.
It really doesn't matter if the billboard industry pulled their first
proposal off the table or not. People should be able to weigh in on the concept of
electronic billboards. If it's five or ten or twenty... if they're on 15-501
or 85 or the Durham Freeway... we can say we see this as a terrible idea.
We've seen electronic billboards in North Carolina. We know what they look
like. We don't need to be told how to think by the billboard industry.
Do we want them in Durham? People are allowed to say no (and we don't need
to be told to hush up until the billboard industry gets its act together).
And, let's not ignore the risk to Durham and Durham taxpayers. Federal law
states that if Durham ever decided to remove billboards they would have to
reimburse the billboard company for the cost of the billboards -- and any future
revenue the billboards would generate.
That's a huge risk to impose on local government and Durham taxpayers.
More information is below and here... http://www.scenic.org/dsus.pdf
best,
John
****
Communities may expose themselves to enormous liabilities
(Scenic America)
* The Highway Beautification Act requires cash compensation to sign owners
of billboards on Interstates and federal-aid highways
* Compensation is usually defined as the value of the structure, plus lost
revenue, making each digital sign worth millions of dollars
* The costs of compensating billboard owners will be enormous even in the
course of normal highway widenings and improvements if the signs need to be
moved or taken down
* Once studies are completed, and if the signs are found to be unsafe in
their current configurations, any required changes to sign operations may cost
governments millions in compensation payments
* Who will be held liable if accidents are influenced by the signs if it is
shown that governments knowingly permitted their construction even in the
face of pending research or critical safety studies?
Source... http://www.scenic. org/dsus. pdf
****
Letter: Durham can't afford electronic billboards
Herald-Sun, 23 Dec 2008
I oppose Fairway Advertising' s efforts to amend Durham's ordinances to
allow it to erect electronic billboards. In Sunday's Herald-Sun, John Schelp and
Larry Holt reported distressing facts about the carbon footprint of Fairway's
proposed 25 electronic billboards, which will be equivalent to a new
325-unit housing development.
Fairway's proposal that we amend ordinances so they can build electronic
billboards flies in the face of the efforts of many Durham residents and
organizations working to make Durham a greener, sustainable carbon-neutral
community.
Equally distressing, allowing electronic billboards now will make them much
more expensive to get rid of down the road. Schelp's article states that the
Highway Beautification Act requires cash compensation for the value of the
structure plus lost revenue. Fairway's article estimates the value of the
"donated" non-profit advertising at "millions of dollars." By extension, the value
of the other six ads they would run on their billboards would be six times
"millions of dollars."
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that for their "donation," Fairway
is guaranteeing the future of these billboards. In order to take one down,
Durham taxpayers would be obligated to compensate Fairway for the cost of the
billboard plus the six- or seven-times millions of dollars of lost revenues.
That's a pretty good return on a donation for Fairway.
Durham gets a light- and carbon-polluting billboard we didn't ask for,
putting advertising revenues in the pockets of an out-of-state company. Surely we
can do better.
Kelly Jarrett
Durham
****
_______________________________________________
Durham INC Mailing List
list at durham-inc.org
http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
cemailfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090119/101fc370/attachment.htm>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list