[Durham INC] Fwd: Electronic billboards still a bad idea; new website launched today (Herald-Sun)

[N. Gallman]

---------- Forwarded message ----------


*Electronic billboards still a bad idea for Durham*
By Larry Holt & John Schelp, Herald-Sun, 24 March 2009

The billboard industry is campaigning hard to overturn Durham's existing ban
on billboards. To counter the misinformation coming from industry, folks in
the community are launching a new website today at
http://supportdurhambillboardban.com/

On this site, you can see photos of billboards over homes in East Durham,
video clips of blinking electronic billboards in action, and a thoughtful
presentation supporting Durham's current ban on billboards.

Overturning Durham's ban on electronic billboards would open the door to
big, bright, blinking billboards on I-85, 147, 15-501 and 70. Do we want
large billboards at the top of tall metal poles -- flashing ads every eight
seconds -- near homes, schools, parks and places of worship?

The site outlines many reasons to oppose the billboard industry's attempt to
overturn our ordinance.

Billboard taxes and the local economy: Billboards are not taxed on the
amount of revenue they generate. So, billboards contribute an extremely
small amount to Durham's tax revenues.

Fairway Advertising paid just $2,605.60 in taxes last year. Just $2600 for
the 46 billboards Fairway owns in Durham. Many single family residences in
Durham pay a lot more than that.

Replacing standard billboards with electronic ones would generate 10 times
more revenues for billboard owners -- from $2,000 to $14,000/month (Inc.
magazine). And yet, tax revenues would remain tiny.

Adding insult to injury, if local officials wanted to remove an electronic
billboard for any reason in the future, Durham taxpayers would have to
compensate the owners for lost revenues.

Jobs: Durham would see few economic benefits from new jobs, since billboard
companies employ very few people (mostly managers and sales personnel), and
Fairway's offices are in Georgia and Raleigh. Fairway's impact on Durham's
economy is negligible.

Public Service Ads: A common industry tactic for undermining public
opposition to electronic billboards is to offer free billboard space to
non-profit organizations. The industry has employed this tactic in Durham,
asking City Council members to name their favorite local non-profits then
approaching the groups and offering them free billboard space. This explains
why you're suddenly seeing non-profit billboards around town.

The often unnoticed irony in this tactic is that the ads on electronic
billboards change about 10,800 times/day. So, we can see PSAs for
anti-drinking programs followed by ads for Bud Lite and Seagram's Vodka.

Billboards and the environment: Electronic billboards have a big carbon
footprint -- equivalent to that of about 13 houses. At the same time
citizens are being urged to use florescent light bulbs to reduce our
individual carbon footprints, we're being urged to embrace billboards and
their energy consumption?

Public safety: Anything that distracts a driver's eyes from the road for
more than two seconds significantly increases the chances of a wreck.
Electronic billboards are designed to attract drivers' attention and are an
intrinsic safety hazard. Do we really want drivers on our increasingly
congested thoroughfares intentionally distracted by attention-grabbing
electronic billboards?

Aesthetics: Durham citizens, neighborhood groups, and local officials worked
hard to reduce billboard blight along our highways and in our city. There
have been a many, many letters to the editor from Durham citizens who oppose
electronic billboards and a only a few supporting the billboard industry,
with most of those coming from the Friends of Durham/Chamber of Commerce
camp. Some of these letter writers have blamed local government for the
deterioration of billboards in Durham. The fact is that current ordinances
allow billboard companies to make annual improvements in order to maintain
their billboards, but the industry has allowed its billboards to deteriorate
anyway. These billboards may be ugly, but don't blame current ordinances or
local government.

The Chamber's efforts on behalf of the billboard industry to overturn the
current ban on electronic billboards, despite citizen outcry, begs the
question: Why are the City and County giving the Chamber $128,000 in
taxpayer subsidies/year so the Chamber can turn around and lobby local
officials on behalf of outside interests that contribute little to our local
economy or quality of life?

And it's inexcusable that billboard industry lawyers target a Planning
staffer because the facts she presents don't support their client's attempt
to overturn Durham's ban on electronic billboards (Officials' objectivity
questioned, Herald-Sun, 3/08/09). Surely, the billboard industry isn't
suggesting that relevant facts should be kept from the public?

As a recent article points out, there are plenty of compelling reasons not
to overturn Durham's ordinance (Planner: Proceed with caution on billboard
issue, Durham News, 2/07/09)...

* Fairway's billboards now produce about $2,600 in county tax revenue;
switching some to digital "would still not generate significant revenue"

* Local government cannot require the signs to carry public-service messages

* Digital billboards could be found to violate the federal Highway
Beautification Act

* Allowing digital billboards while safety studies are pending could expose
Durham to liability for accidents

* Full sunlight reaches about 6,500 "nits;" a digital billboard can reach
10,000 nits.

Please visit our new website. Electronic billboards are a bad idea for
Durham. Together, we can stop the billboard industry.

****

Website... http://supportdurhambillboardban.com/

[Note: Column above is submitted version, published version not yet online]

****




-- 
n. gallman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090324/152dc5a5/attachment.htm>