[Durham INC] billboard industry is trying to overturn Durham's ban on electronic billboards

[John Schelp]

folks,

This isn't complicated. The billboard industry is trying to overturn our current ban on electronic billboards in Durham. That's it.

It really doesn't matter if the billboard industry pulled their first proposal off the table or not. People should be able to weigh in on the concept of electronic billboards. If it's five or ten or twenty... if they're on 15-501 or 85 or the Durham Freeway... we can say we see this as a terrible idea. 

We've seen electronic billboards in North Carolina. We know what they look like. We don't need to be told how to think by the billboard industry. 

Do we want them in Durham? People are allowed to say no (and we don't need to be told to hush up until the billboard industry gets its act together).

And, let's not ignore the risk to Durham and Durham taxpayers. Federal law states that if Durham ever decided to remove billboards they would have to reimburse the billboard company for the cost of the billboards -- and any future revenue the billboards would generate.

That's a huge risk to impose on local government and Durham taxpayers.

More information is below and here... http://www.scenic.org/dsus.pdf 

best,
John

****

Communities may expose themselves to enormous liabilities
(Scenic America)
 
* The Highway Beautification Act requires cash compensation to sign owners of billboards on Interstates and federal-aid highways

* Compensation is usually defined as the value of the structure, plus lost revenue, making each digital sign worth millions of dollars

* The costs of compensating billboard owners will be enormous even in the course of normal highway widenings and improvements if the signs need to be moved or taken down

* Once studies are completed, and if the signs are found to be unsafe in their current configurations, any required changes to sign operations may cost governments millions in compensation payments

* Who will be held liable if accidents are influenced by the signs if it is shown that governments knowingly permitted their construction even in the face of pending research or critical safety studies?

Source... http://www.scenic. org/dsus. pdf

****

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. 

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

****