[Durham INC] [owdna] Re: [pac2] Developments regarding Electronic billboards in Durham

Fri Jan 16 14:26:44 EST 2009

Mike,

I may be missing something, but last time I checked, 147, 15-501, 70, and 
85 ran near our homes, schools, churches, and parks?

The biggest part of the proposal is to allow lighted electronic billboards. 
There's no reason we need them and no reason they're good for Durham, other 
than to line Fairway's pocketbooks.

I have not so fond memories of Fairway when they spent tons of campaign 
money to knock a few cracks in Asheville's billboard ordinances, then 
immediately went on a building spree, coating the town with new billboards 
and increasing the sizes of existing ones.  One was so reviled that a 
rebellious soul went and chainsawed the thing in half, prompting weeks of 
laudatory letters to the editor in the Citizen-Times.  I've seen at least a 
previous generation of what Fairway Outdoor Advertising has in mind for 
what it thinks is just a little improvement, and I can say quite clearly, I 
want none of it.

I've been quiet on this issue, but only because I'm a bit overwhelmed with 
other stuff at the moment.  But while I respect the sentiment of, "cool 
down, let's take a look at this," ask any current or former resident of 
Asheville about this firm, and they'll tell you.

Don't.  Trust.  Fairway.

-Michael

--On Friday, January 16, 2009 1:03 PM -0500 Mike - Hotmail 
<mwshiflett at hotmail.com> wrote:

> As far as I've been able to understand from listening to both sides of
> this  issue,  at no time have I heard or seen evidence that the billboard
> industry  is proposing to put up new ".........flashing billboards near
> our homes,  schools, churches, and parks."  From the previous INC meeting
> and from what  I've read in the newspapers, they only want to have them
> along the current  legal locations that they are now.  That being US85,
> 15-501, 70 and 147.
>
> I have not heard that they are looking at upgrading any signs to digital
> anywhere near any of the above.
>
> Can someone can provide confirmation or evidence of this?
>
> In the meantime,  I'm still trying to understand exactly what it being
> proposed and presented in the text amendment.
>
> Mike Shiflett
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelly Jarrett" <kjj1 at duke.edu>
> To: "owdNA" <owdna at yahoogroups.com>; "PAC2" <pac2 at yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 9:41 AM
> Subject: [pac2] Developments regarding Electronic billboards in Durham
>
>
> For those who have been following the electronic billboard issue, the
> following might be of interest:
>
> Forwarded from INC listserv:
>
> folks,
>
> Let us celebrate a victory for the community...
>
> In choosing to do nothing, the DDI board decided not to support the
> billboard industry.
>
> This decision represents a set-back for those trying to stick big,
> bright,  flashing billboards near our homes, schools, churches, and
> parks. (Thanks go  to those DDI board members who spoke out against this
> terrible idea.)
>
> The struggle continues to stop the billboard industry from overturning
> the  current ban on electronic billboards in Durham.
>
> But today we celebrate a victory for common sense.
>
> have a great weekend,
> John
>
>
> January 15, 2009
>
> Mr. Paul Hickman
> General Manager
> Fairway Outdoor Advertising
> P. O. Box 10545
> Raleigh, NC  27605
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> Several weeks ago Steve Toler and you asked that the DDI Board of
> Directors  consider your request to the City of Durham related to revised
> text  amendment language related to the outdoor advertising industry in
> Durham.
>
> What follows is a summary of the DDI Board's lengthy and thoughtful
> discussion, and its decision.
>
> As DDI understands, last summer, Fairway Outdoor Advertising submitted an
> application, which is still pending, for a text amendment revision to the
> UDO related to Durham's billboard ordinance.  After submitting its
> application, Fairway representatives met with members of Planning
> Department, which forwarded the application to the Joint City-County
> Planning Committee for review. The JCCPC recommended to Fairway that it
> begin a process of meeting with community organizations to discuss the
> billboard proposal.  Following the JCCPC meeting, we understand that
> Fairway  withdrew the draft language portion of its text amendment
> application; and,  in good faith, began scheduling meetings for its
> community outreach effort.  After completing its community outreach
> effort, Fairway may re-submit  revised draft text amendment language as
> part of its current application.
>
> So, technically, until Fairway re-submits formal draft text amendment
> language for its application, currently there is no formal text amendment
> "on the table."
>
> While there is no formal text amendment language to consider at this
> time,  DDI recognizes the substantial community interest about this
> issue, and in  keeping with DDI's long standing effort to lend its
> voice to the discussion  of important community issues, and responding to
> a request of Fairway, a DDI  Partner in Progress, the DDI Board of
> Directors held a lengthy and  thoughtful discussion at its meeting on
> January 15th.
>
> After very careful consideration of facts as understood by the members
> present, and of the pros and cons of how this issue relates to our
> community, and in particular downtown, members of the Board of Directors
> were unable to come to a consensus on any recommendation, and therefore
> DDI  voted to take no action related to this issue.
>
> In the interest of disclosure to Fairway and the public, the Board asked
> that I elaborate on the reason for our decision to take no action.
>
> The Board's discussion focused on three main areas:  the repair and
> landscaping of billboards currently in our community; the possible
> relocation of billboards within the community; and, the issue of allowing
> digital billboards.
>
> Board members did wish to encourage the repair and landscaping of
> billboards  currently in our community.  Members were of the opinion that
> given the  unsightly nature of many Durham roadsides, and of some
> billboards, our  community's appearance would benefit from the repair
> and landscaping of  current billboards.  However, repair or upgrade of
> billboards is difficult.  As DDI understands, the current Durham
> billboard ordinance allows for  routine maintenance and for repairs as
> long as those repairs do not exceed  25% of the value of the billboard in
> any given year, or the repairs do not  use substantially different
> materials. For example, if an outdoor  advertising company attempted to
> replace a wood billboard frame with a metal  frame, it would be difficult
> to make the upgrade since wood is a very  different material than metal,
> and the cost would probably exceed 25% of the  value of the billboard.
>
> In regard to the issue of relocation of billboards, Board members were
> uncertain of any criteria that have been recommended to insure that any
> relocated billboard would not harm the visual appeal of any Durham
> neighborhood, including downtown.  For example, without specific
> guidelines,  Board members discussed whether or not billboards could be
> erected in an  area that might result in an unsightly cluster effect, or
> might harm a  neighborhood's curb appeal, or, in the case of downtown,
> might block  downtown's emerging skyline.  As a result of this
> uncertainty, the Board  recommends to the community that if Fairway
> re-submits text amendment  language, the issue of relocation would
> benefit from a community discussion  about appropriate criteria for
> relocation; and, that serious thought should  be given to the formation
> of a commission of government, community and  industry representatives
> which would consider any relocation of billboards  along Durham's main
> corridors.
>
> Very serious consideration was given to the issue of allowing digital
> billboards in our community.  Members of the Board could come to no
> consensus on whether or not digital billboards brought value or harm to
> our  community --- and it was clear that a consensus was not going to be
> achieved.  If one assumes that digital billboards are an effective
> message  provider, some Board members saw value in digital billboards as
> they relate  to marketing downtown events, providing opportunities for
> less expensive  marketing for downtown businesses, and providing amber
> alerts and other  emergency messages that could benefit our community.
> On the other hand,  other Board members were concerned about the visual
> impact of digital  billboards, especially since no one could be certain
> where future digital  billboards might be located (other than on main
> corridors, and near  commercial areas), and what impact they might have
> on any neighborhood (some  neighborhoods may be located
> near commercial areas) in Durham.  Since Board members were simply not
> knowledgeable about where digital billboards would be located, and
> therefore  would not know what impact they might have on any
> neighborhood, Board  members could not reach any consensus.
>
> In the final analysis, the DDI Board of Directors is composed of 45
> thoughtful business, community and political leaders.  These 45 people
> will  have different opinions of what is good, or not good, for our
> community's  future growth.  Sometimes, not often, reaching a consensus
> on a  controversial community issue is simply not possible.  And, in
> those  instances, we have an obligation to agree to disagree with each
> other, and  vote to take the action to take no action.
>
> If you have any questions, or would like to discuss my Board's decision
> further, please feel free to give me a call.
>
> Cordially yours,
>
>
> William A. Kalkhof
> President
>
> Cc:  Mr. Steve Toler
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ***
>
> The opinions expressed herein represent the views of the individual and
> do  not necessarily represent the views of Partners Against Crime -
> District II  (PAC2) or any other organization. Any use of the material on
> this listserv  other than for the purpose of discussion on this listserv
> is strictly  prohibited without the knowledge and consent of the person
> responsible for  such opinion.
>
> ***
>
> For more information: http://www.pac2durham.com
> to post message: pac2 at yahoogroups.com;
> to subscribe:  pac2-subscribe at yahoogroups.com; to unsubscribe:
> pac2-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
> *** Neighbors and friends: in order to keep traffic on this list focused
> on  crime prevention, please do not post virus warnings or personal
> replies to  this list. Thanks! ***
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> *** A neighborly note: if you intend to reply to an individual who has
> posted (but don't intend it to go to the listserv), make sure that you
> have the recipient's email address in your "TO:" line and not
> "owdna at yahoogroups.com". Thanks! ***Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/owdna/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
>     Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/owdna/join
>     (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
>     mailto:owdna-digest at yahoogroups.com
>     mailto:owdna-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     owdna-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>