[Durham INC] Editorial: First in blight? (today's News & Observer)

[John Schelp]

"This isn't about moderation, it's about wretched excess."

Editorial: First in blight?
The billboard industry is pushing hard for a law that would spawn flashing signs all over North Carolina (News & Observer, March 25, 2011)

There is nothing surprising about it. And that's the only "positive" thing to say about a proposal the billboard industry is pushing in the General Assembly.

Basically, the industry wants a state law that would in effect gut local ordinances (such as one in Durham) that attempt to limit billboards so that owners might bring in digital billboards that would change every eight seconds, flashing different messages from different advertisers. And, the industry would like to nearly double the space around the signs that could be cleared of trees.

The industry for years has sought to weaken regulation, and has sometimes ignored what regulation there was. The bill to allow up to seven electronic billboards per mile comes from Republican Sen. Harry Brown of Onslow County. Lobbyists for the industry tout this as a jobs creator. If the billboards are allowed to sprout, says Tony Adams of the N.C. Outdoor Advertising Association, businesses will do better and have more jobs.

That's a conclusion based on self-interested speculation, tailored to a Republican majority in the General Assembly that has come to power pledging to be more business-friendly. But surely GOP members are not as naïve as the industry thinks they are. (The billboarders also are supporting politicians with some flashing signs that matter, those of dead presidents. Bob Hall of political watchdog group Democracy North Carolina, says executives with major billboard companies have given over $150,000 to politicians and political committees in the last five years.)

Raleigh City Attorney Tom McCormick sums up some reasons for opposition: "You don't need to have these things all over the place. They're traffic hazards that distract motorists. And they're unattractive to your city." The Triangle area in particular has done well to limit the number of billboards. How many folks around here have had visitors from other states comment on our highways' scenic appeal? Many. Instead of billboards along I-40, for example, people mainly see trees.

This isn't to say that there's no place suitable for outdoor advertising. But any industry whose products are in public view, all the time, and are stationed by public roadsides needs regulating.

Instead, the industry wants to cut more trees to make its signs more visible. (Doggone trees.) And by installing flashing signs, billboard owners will multiply the amount of money they can make from one location.

This is a curious twist on the "small government" philosophy of the Republicans now in power. They're always talking about how government infringes on everything. And yet they're considering legislation that would bring down the heavy hand of (state) government on towns and cities, effectively wiping out the attempts of councils and town boards to address issues that are pertinent to their communities.

This is a rotten tomato of special interest legislating tossed by an industry that just won't give up. No one is trying, or should try, to put billboards out of business. In the right places, yes, they can be helpful to motorists and to business. Like most things, they're not offensive or harmful in moderation.

But this isn't about moderation, it's about wretched excess. Lawmakers should dismiss the proposition quicker than one of those eight-second signs.


http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/03/25/1079536/first-in-blight.html