[Durham INC] billboard industry is trying to overturn Durham's ban on ele...

Mon Jan 19 15:15:34 EST 2009

John

I don't recall anyone saying hush up, or anything like that. I merely  
explained why I personally have been reserving judgement, where I'm usually  quick 
with my opinion.

In truth, I hope no one hushes up, and I applauded the thoughtful dialogue.  
All I've been saying is that I can't form a final opinion until all the facts  
are known.

I'd be curious as to how you'd answer the following:

If Fairway  offered to take down all of their signs in exchange for one 
single electronic  board, would you vote for that, John?

That would effectively eliminate  more than half the billboards we have now. 
I know you don't expect them to offer  that, and neither do I. The real 
question is what will they offer, and right now  that's anyone's guess.

I'm not going to form an opinion based on anyone's guess, as we will know  
the facts soon enough.

Care to answer that question John?

Bill

In a message dated 1/19/2009 2:53:18 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
bwatu at yahoo.com writes:

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

****

_______________________________________________
Durham  INC Mailing  List
list at durham-inc.org
http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html

**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
cemailfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090119/101fc370/attachment.htm>