[Durham INC] growing opposition to electronic billboards in Durham (posts opposing e-billboards on blogs, newspapers, etc)

[John Schelp]

-> Comments on Bull City Rising...

Thanks for the entry, Kevin. Keep in mind that the billboard industry wants to change our ordinance so they can erect electronic billboards on stretches of the Durham Freeway, 15-501, I-85 and US 70. 

So, we can walk along New Hope Creek and enjoy a big bright ad for used cars. Jog around Duke's golf course and see ads for hamburgers. Have dinner at American Tobacco and enjoy a bright horizon -- flashing good deals on teeth whitening and J&R's Cigar Outlet in Burlington.

Durham residents can wake up, work, play and sleep near one... :)

And, you gotta love the billboard industry's sudden new-found interest in the environment. Of course, that hasn't stopped them from recently cutting down even more trees in front of their billboards -- or putting up new electric ones -- each with a carbon footprint matching 13 houses.

Here's some good background from Scenic America... http://www.scenic.org/dsus.pdf

==

Driver safety should be reason enough to ban these billboards. I've seen then in other parts of the state and Virginia and they are really annoying and bright to compensate for sunlight. In addition, they are ugly and a waste energy. Hideola. No, thanks.

==

Just what we need—blinding distractions, changing message 7 times a minute and spewing 108 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere a year.

The absence of political leadership on this issue is deafening.

==

The argument that they will 'benefit' the community with public service ads is complete and total B.S.

Fairway and company will undoubtedly deduct the value of this 'contribution' from their corporate income taxes, meaning that one way or another, we will be paying for the dang things.

As someone who lives in west Durham near I-85, the last thing we need is MORE light pollution from from these overly bright billboards, not to mention the distration they will pose for drivers.

It is time for someone - anyone - from the City Council and BOCC to step up and say "NO".

==

The [safety] information came from Scenic America. For more background, folks can visit http://www.scenic.org/dsus.pdf (see slides #5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11).

These bullets are from slide #9...

* If the motorist spends enough time to read and comprehend the sign, by definition they have taken their eyes away from the driving task too long

* Digital signs are designed to pull drivers’ attention from the roadway, otherwise they are useless as advertising

* Drivers already have too much distraction inside and outside the car

* Digital signs, because they are especially distracting due to bright light, vibrant color, and image changes or motion, divert attention from official signs that are necessary for the safe operation of the car

==

What about the idea that digital signs actually slow traffic? People have become so accustomed to advertising that they ignore it, hence the appeal of something digital for our ADD society.

Sometime later today I will be passing one of the largest digital signs, for a truck dealership on I-85 at the Georgia/Alabama state line. It's a great reminder of the CST time change, and I look forward to it on every trip. It makes me slow down to read it.

==

Hmmm. Say it's true that some cars may slow down to read electronic billboards. Well then, that's another safety issue. Because other cars won't be slowing down. 

Many others will maintain speed. (Think of folks on cruise control and veteran long-haul truck drivers.) So, if a car in front of you suddenly slows down to read a bright billboard -- that could create a potential hazard on the road. :) 

Safety. Blight. Environment. Taxpayer risk. There are plenty of different reasons to oppose this move by the billboard industry.

==

Don't worry, the Fairway proposal in the city limits is dead on arrival. There are no benefits, and it's really a "lose/lose" situation no matter how you slice it. However, they might have a chance for compromise in the county by having a few (3-4) of these billboards set up outside the city limits, or just over into Orange and Granville counties. You still reach a significant share of both local and interstate market, but with fewer drivers changing lanes or going on/off ramp while looking at all the pretty billboard lights in the middle of town. If Fairway can't make a profit on such a compromise, then they should just forget it and move on down the road.

==

I live just outside the city limits. Don't put the blinding distractions in my neighborhood in the name of "compromise." Same thing goes for Orange and Granville Counties.

****

-> Comments on Bull City Rising (reaction to another entry)...

I saw one of these electronic billboards in the Triad area along I-40 and it was obnoxious... much worse than the static billboards we have already. I'm super curious about how this guy intends to convince us to support these horrific billboards. I cannot imagine anyone wanting these things except those who profit from them.

==

No to the billboards, I say. Talk about a great way to further decrease the property value that was already hit hard when NC-147 was put in! Do we want these areas to stay blighted forever, just as we are starting to see some of the boarded up houses get fixed up and occupied by working families?

==

Electronic billboards look great - in Times Square. And Las Vegas.

But not in Durham. No way. Tacky, tacky, tacky. 

However, if Fairway wants to talk about installing free bus shelters in return for allowing reasonable, non-electronic ads on the shelters, I'm all ears.

==

I've seen these electronic bill boards in the Triad and near Richmond. They look like large flat screen TVs on a stick -- that flash different images every five seconds.

Not only do the bill boards represent a distraction on the Interstate in a congested urban setting, many of these bill boards stand near homes and residential neighborhoods along the Interstate. 

I'm surprised this is even being considered by local officials. The INC needs to strongly oppose this move by the bill board industry. 

****

-> Comments on Pam's House Blend...

Safety concerns are more than enough, believe me 

Another distraction while I'm driving in crappy weather like we're having now? Just what I need!

==

All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. 

- George Orwell 

==

We have these awful things where I live, and YES, they're a distraction placed next to a busy freeway. Part of why the US accident rate per passenger-mile is so much higher than in Europe, where roadside distractions are reduced and there's much less signage in general. These things do NO good. 

==

We have these all over Atlanta, and they're really not that distracting nor bright.  The environmental impact, though, is one I had wondered about.  That part really IS a problem.

==

The safety consideration should over ride any advertising issue 

If drivers are more distracted, or blinded at night by this garbage it should be banned. No driver has to be harmed or killed for thier ads. G*d Knows everything in America has an advertising oppurtunity, product placements in every TV show, movie, Nascar cars and outfits, every website....what effect does another 2 seconds passing a billboard add to that barrage 24/7?

==

If advertisers wanted to have small screen tv size ads at bottom of ramps on or off the freeway where people wait at lights 

Those shouldn't be in view of where people are driving at top speeds. Those would maybe be a welcome distraction from just sitting stopped in a car, but most folks don't really need another distraction of their phoning/driving/eating/drinking/smoking/applying make up/reading travel EXPERIENCE.

==

Here in Connecticut and they S**k. 

On a rainy night they give off such a glare it makes it hard to see the road.

****

-> Comments on Bull City Rising (reaction to another entry)...

Has anyone reviewed council member's campaign finance reports lately to see whether Fairway has donated any funds to council? This was a huge issue on Hilton Head, with several state representatives accepting a lot of money from the billboard industry. Those same representatives always seemed to support requests to keep those signs on the roadways. 

==

These electronic billboards are a terrible idea. Drive up I-95 by Phillip-Morris, just south of Richmond. A big, bright, flashing billboard dominates your view. 

It's more like a huge flat screen TV than a traditional bill board. New ads are splashed on the screen every ten seconds or so. We don't need this kind of clutter on our roadways. 

With cars entering and exiting the interstate in an urban setting, the last thing we need is a big bright distraction flashing outside the window.

==

Instead of making this compromise, Durham should be working to take away the billboard companies market share by pushing logo signs for I-85. If the hotels, restaurants, and gas stations had a place on the logo signs, they would be less likely to buy ad space on the billboards, too.

For some reason, these signs have never been placed on I-85 between 15-501 and US 70. There is one set of them on northbound 85 at Cole Mill Rd, but then no more until Club Blvd.

In any case, this billboard 'upgrade' does not sound like a good idea. The last thing Durham drivers need is a flashy jumbotron-like distraction.

==

I HATE those flashing billboards. There's one on 52 in Winston-Salem, and I nearly ran off the road the first time I came by it in heavy traffic just as it changed messages. Drivers, especially me!, do not need these distractions. Enough with the visual litter!

==

I concur with many of the above comments. We should be doing more to eliminate billboards and visual pollution, not enhancing it.

==

No flashing billboards! Yuck.

****

-> Comments on Bull City Rising (reaction to another entry)...

As legal non-conforming uses, there is no prohibition on Fairway "maintaining" their use. That these boards could somehow slowly deteriorate until they fall is myth. Fairway and others will keep repairing (and in so doing strengthen) these structures as needed.

It would very well take "Hurricane Humongous" to make any difference.

As to LED, while I have no principled objection, the LED signs near Greensboro are shockingly bright. Reasonable regulations need to be put in place to regulate the public safety and externality problems of these glaring beacons of commerce.

==

I holding out hope for Hurricane Humongous, aided by some strategically placed termite infestations.

==

I don't think we should reward the billboard companies for deliberately letting their billboards deteriorate. 

==

We should absolutely refuse to allow these billboards to bring more blight to our community: No compromises, no change to existing city policies, period.

These new light emitting billboards are much, much, much worse than what we have already. They do NOT have a right to advertise to me while I drive on public highways and to bring more blight into our community when we are trying to remove the blight.

Too much time, work, and money has already gone into the policy we have today. Changing that policy is opening a can of worms. The right approach is to modify the federal law to allow cities to eliminate billboards altogether.

==

There is absolutely no need for Durham to make this change. None at all.

I would much rather wait for either:
A: Hurricane Humongous to take them out, or
B: The federal legislation to change.

I have heard the vista-marring billboards along I-40 in Western NC descibed as "a finger in the face of God." It's a good description.

==

Anyone who has travelled to parts of the country or the rest of the world where billboards are non-existant, can appreciate how refreshing the scenery is when all you have is...scenery. 

Let the billboards blow away on God's schedule. And let the businesses keep their advertising dollars in newspapers as God meant them to. 

==

With all the TV commercials, pop-up ads, and junk mail we have to deal with daily, I'd just as soon see them get blown away and never come back. Flashing lights on huge billboards in Durham ain't gonna happen. Business will get the word out to us some other way, or we could wait until we need something and then go look for it the old-fashioned way....YellowPages.com!

==

i've got some thoughts on how this issue relates to the INC over at my place.

http://dependableerection.blogspot.com/2008/12/billboards.html

==

To echo all of the above comments: Billboards are a blight as they are. If they are allowed to become digital then they are a blight AND a waste of energy. Let them perish. 

==

Billboards are non-conforming structures under the UDO. This is a land use/zoning issue, and Durham is perfectly within its rights to regulate billboards in this way.

Durham's ordinance is kind of like a pop-up blocker on your PC - it keeps any more billboards from popping up in Durham, and should keep doing so. Does a pop-up blocker violate someone's freedom of 'commercial speach'? Don't be ridiculous.

Billboards are ugly, and Durham does not need any more - especially the flashy light-up kind.

****

-> From Dependable E...

Billboards 

Lot of discussion about billboards around town this week. Kevin's recap of the issue is here. Here's the Herald Sun report on Fairway's (the company that owns most of the billboards in town) presentation to the INC to lobby for a change to the local ordinance that governs billboards. (Read Kevin's post to understand the ins and outs of the deal.) Nothing so far in the N&O, but i wouldn't be surprised if Jim wise has something in the weekend Durham News.

Here's the piece that nobody's picking up on yet.

The INC presentation was made by Patrick Byker, attorney for Fairway. Byker works for the law firm of K&L/Gates. As does Craigie Sanders, the current president of the Inter Neighborhood Council. We've pointed out the appearance of a conflict of interest in Craigie's two positions in the past. As far as i'm concerned, that's just getting worse.

> K&L/Gates Associates:

> K&L Gates LLP comprises 1,700 lawyers who practice in 28 offices located on three continents: Anchorage, Austin, Beijing, Berlin, Boston, Charlotte, Dallas, Fort Worth, Harrisburg, Hong Kong, London, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, New York, Orange County, Palo Alto, Paris, Pittsburgh, Portland, Raleigh, Research Triangle Park, San Francisco, Seattle, Shanghai, Spokane/Coeur d'Alene, Taipei and Washington. K&L Gates represents capital markets participants and leading global corporations, growth and middle-market companies, and entrepreneurs in every major industry group as well as public sector entities, educational institutions and philanthropic organizations. Our practice is robustly a full market practice — at once regional, national and international in scope — and it is cutting edge, complex, and dynamic.

> Patrick L. Byker Counsel
Research Triangle Park... 

> Areas of Practice • Professional/Civic Activities • Speaking Engagements • Bar Admissions • Education • Additional Information

> Mr. Byker focuses his practice on land use and zoning. He was previously Vice President of Government Relations with the Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce.

> Craigie D. Sanders Real Estate Staff Lawyer
Research Triangle Park...

> Areas of Practice • Professional/Civic Activities • Bar Admissions • Education • Additional Information

> Mr. Sanders focuses his practice on land use planning and development matters. In addition to having extensive experience in working with elected and appointed government officials, he has experience conducting neighborhood and community meetings.

> As a former city planner, Mr. Sanders also has experience in comprehensive planning, rezoning matters, Board of Adjustment requests, plan amendments, historic preservation matters and city ordinance revisions.

No way it's a coincidence that the INC is being pitched on the billboard ordinance revision, after so many years of that group leading the fight against billboards. One more step along the road to irrelevance for this once important organization.

==

Comments reacting to Barry's entry...

Sanders should step down.

This is getting ridiculous.

I can't think of a single community, with the exception of zoned commercial places like Times Square, that benefits from the visual pollution of contemporary billboards...

==

I am disappointed that INC provided an unchallenged platform for this industry presentation. At the very least, INC leadership should have taken the initiative to seek out a speaker who could have presented an opposing viewpoint at the meeting. This could have come from any number of places and perspectives: an urban planning perspective, an energy consumption perspective, an economic analysis, an aesthetic perspective. I don't think any effort was made to seek out any alternate perspectives to appear at the INC meeting.

It is ironic that INC allowed itself to be used as a forum for promoting the billboard industry call to install electronic billboards in Durham when INC was a leader in the fight against billboard blight.

==

Barry, thanks for this post.

The current INC leadership needs to take a careful look at how all this appears. For starters, they need to stop pampering the billboard companies.

****

Bonus: Herald-Sun Question of the Week...

What do you think about the proposed digital billboards?

This does not seem to be in the best interest for our community. I like Durham descriptives such as grit, diversity, city of neighborhoods. Do we really need to know what the hottest Vodka brand is or where the best car deal can be had while driving down our streets? I vote NO to propaganda and bright, digital billboards. - Long time resident and neighbor.

==

I enjoy the skyline I see now from the Freeway as I drive to various destinations. Our skyline is something Durham's history can be proud of, and electric billboards would be a tacky distraction. I already hate all the alcohol and fatty food ads I have to see on my way out of the neighborhood I live in as is.

If your not supposed to watch DVD players in your car, electronic billboards along a street don't sound like a hot idea either. It's meant to take your eyes off the road and the science says that these ads succeed in doing that. Therefore, these electronic billboards have been shown to decrease safety along the roads they "grace".

Durham should decline companies that want to put up new billboards in our community.

****

Lettter: This isn't Vegas
Herald-Sun, 24 Dec 2008

Electronic billboards? Who needs this? Not Durham, the "foodiest" city in the country, according to Bon Appetit. The best place to live and work, say several surveys -- a wonderful cultural crystal palace, the largest performing arts center filled with patrons. So we now are considering looking and acting like Las Vegas? 

Please say no! 

Sally Schauman
Durham

****

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. [see below] 

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

****