[Durham INC] Billboard bill still alive

[Pat Carstensen]

10 digital billboards a mile -- Oh my!


The News and Observer had an excellent editorial, so letters to the editor thanking them would be appropriate:

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article151660512.html

[http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/eg8uvp/picture151660502/alternates/LANDSCAPE_1140/Digital%20billboards]<http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article151660512.html>

Billboard bills would mar NC’s beauty<http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article151660512.html>
www.newsobserver.com
North Carolina’s natural beauty is one of our greatest assets; don’t let the General Assembly sell out our state’s roadways to support a struggling billboard industry.

This is the Sierra Club analysis of the bills:

You may recall that House Bill 581<http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2017&BillID=h581&submitButton=Go> “Revisions to Outdoor Advertising Laws” sponsored by Rep. Lewis<http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/members/viewMember.pl?sChamber=H&nUserID=389> (R -  Harnett) was expected to be heard in committee this week. But it was pulled from the House Finance calendar without explanation. The bill could pop back up as soon as Tuesday. H 581 would allow more billboards to convert to digital and authorize billboards to be to be relocated with more ease despite local regulations. Given that there are three more billboard bills with similar language (H 578, H 579, H 580) - it’s possible that these bills might be combined into one big, bad billboard bill.


Combined, the billboard bills would give the industry special treatment and take away local government authority to regulate outdoor advertising - for example:


  *   Billboard companies would be allowed to relocate billboards to new locations - even to some areas where they are not currently allowed.

  *   Print billboards could be converted to digital regardless of local regulations.

  *   If state or local governments condemn a billboard sign for public projects like roads or  bridges taxpayers would be on the hook for paying billboard companies lost advertising revenue; not simply the replacement cost of signs. The companies have unsuccessfully sought this lucrative concession for years in the courts and in the legislature.

  *   Billboard companies would be allowed to cut down more trees around billboards to improve visibility at the expense of scenery.

  *

  *   Dogwood and redbud trees would lose protections they currently have from cutting to increase visibility of billboards.

Regards, pat

PS. There's a lot of other threatening stuff coming from Raleigh, from "redistributing" about 5 Million dollars from sales tax to other "more deserving" counties, attacks on our ability to protect waterways, and hunting on Sundays.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20170524/2f7fbe27/attachment.html>