INC NEWS - flashing, changing, bright, electronic, new, improved, special treatment billboards

Thu Dec 4 19:48:02 EST 2008

Just to remind everyone, the original (2003) anti-amortization bill was written so broadly that it would have affected our ability to control other noxious uses.  THis is the letter INC wrote to the Durham delegation for their efforts that defeated the bills in 2003 (tho they finally got something through in 2004):

The InterNeighborhood Council of Durham (INC) would like to thank you for your leadership in opposing the so-called “billboard bills,” Senate Bill 534 and House Bill 429. These bills would have hamstrung the ability of local governments to use zoning and other regulatory tools to protect neighborhoods from visual blight, dilapidated buildings, and inappropriate uses such as junk yards, nightclubs, and adult entertainment.

The InterNeighborhood Council of Durham (INC) is a private, nonprofit umbrella organization of Durham neighborhood associations.  Our purpose is to work together to preserve and enhance the residential quality of life for all Durham neighborhoods.  Over the last 20 years, we have enjoyed considerable success at the local level. Senate Bill 534 and House Bill 429 would have been a significant set-back for our goals.

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 19:12:15 -0500
From: allen.joshua at gmail.com
To: tom-miller1 at nc.rr.com
CC: inc-list at rtpnet.org
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - flashing, changing, bright, electronic, new, improved,	special treatment billboards

I must agree with Tom who seems to certainly have lived through this saga he details for us.  I can't imagine how a digital billboard, or any billboard, is good for Durham.  Not only do they create blight and driving distractions, but these new billboards will consume and waste energy.  I'm certainly willing to listen to what they have to say, but I just can't even imagine an argument that would cause us to support digital billboards, flashing or not.  Thanks, Tom, for this detailed history.

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Tom Miller <tom-miller1 at nc.rr.com> wrote:

I for one am against what the billboard people are asking
for, i.e., special treatment for a non-conforming use.  As a community, we
decided that Durham
would be a billboard-free zone and we adopted zoning regulations to prevent new
ones from going up.  Those rules also required the old ones to come down
at the end of their useful life (amortization).  The billboard industry
fought like tigers against Durham in court, but Durham won.  As a
result, a lot of billboards came down over time.  Then the billboard industry
got a bill passed to stop amortization as a way of getting rid of unwanted uses
and the remaining billboards got to stay as nonconforming uses.  Under the
law, the owner of a nonconforming use can keep it and can even keep it
repaired.  He loses it if it's destroyed or if he lets it go for a
period of time.  The one thing he can't do is increase it, improve
it, or make it bigger or better.  So if my garage was legal when it was
built, but is now too close to my neighbor's property line under the UDO,
I can keep it.  I can paint it.  I can put a new roof on it.  But
I can't add on to it.  I can't replace it with a new one. 
Why is the billboard industry so special that they get a bye on the rules we
ordinary citizens have to follow and which we ordinary citizens count on to
protect us?

These are the same people, the exact same people, who did
everything they could to make downzoning illegal in NC.  They fought us
for years in the legislature.  By us I mean INC.  Once upon a time
INC kept a mailing list of hundreds of neighborhood organizations across the
state.  We hosted a couple of meetings with neighborhood groups from other
cities, like Raleigh, Henderson,
Chapel Hill, and Winston-Salem. 
Throughout the 80s and 90s when the inevitable billboard bill would be
introduced in each session of the General Assembly, we would work with the
League of Municipalities and environmental groups to stop or blunt the
billboard industry's hateful legislation.  INC mailed out hundreds
of letters informing and enlisting neighborhoods all over the state to help in
the fight.  We were pretty successful too.

These are the same people who used litigation as a stalling
tactic every time our zoning rules required them to take down a
billboard.  It cost the city thousands of dollars in legal resources, but I'll
hand it to the city attorney's office, they didn't give up and they
didn't lose.  That's when the billboard people, one of which
was the predecessor of the very firm making Tuesday night's presentation,
attacked the amortization tool in the legislature.  We, again I mean INC,
fought against them.  Eventually, however, they got their way.

Now they're still not satisfied.  They have a new
product which even they say is the advertising we can't "choose to
see", but "have to see" and they want special treatment in
our zoning ordinance to put it up and make us look at it.  Well in Durham, we have a choice.

I am against it.  I would even be against it if what
they wanted was to put up one new improved and flashing billboard up in someone
else's neighborhood and pay me $500,000 to sit by while they did it.

No one should get to replace a nonconforming use with
another nonconformity.  When Durham
decided to be a billboard-free zone, INC was part of that decision. 
Flashing or just flashy versions of the thing we worked so hard to get rid of
won't convince me to go along with any proposal that replaces old
billboards with new ones or which treats the billboard industry as a special
case.

Tom Miller

_______________________________________________

INC-list mailing list

INC-list at rtpnet.org

http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list

-- 
--Joshua
allen.joshua at gmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20081204/148f90bc/attachment-0001.htm>