[Durham INC] Billboards in the Digital Age: Unsafe (and Unsightly) at Any Speed; Please don't change successful billboard ordinance (Herald-Sun)

[John Schelp]

Dear neighbors,

If you're going to read one article about digital billboards, this is it...

* Billboards in the Digital Age: Unsafe (and Unsightly) at Any Speed  http://scenicflorida.org/images/pdfs/2_BillboardsAndTheDigitalAge.pdf

The column below refutes attempts by the billboard industry to distract officials with flashy arguments (that turn out to be not so true).

To send a short email to officials, supporting the current billboard ordinance, go to http://supportdurhambillboardban.com/contact.html

all best,
John

****

Column: City must keep ban on billboards
By Larry Holt & John Schelp, Herald-Sun, 08 April 2010

There's no compelling reason to make all the non-conforming billboards around town permanent fixtures. As the Herald-Sun wrote ("Week's End," March 6), doing so would open a "can of worms" or spark a raft of lawsuits.

Durham's sign ordinance is working. We have many fewer billboards than 20 years ago. If we open the door to electronic billboards, we're never going to close it.

If we change the ordinance to allow electronic billboards, other businesses will demand that they're allowed bigger, brighter, taller signs in front of their facilities. If officials say no, we get sued.Â

Our hometown paper is right: "We hope the city and county will keep listening to the residents who have to live with, near and beneath the signs."

Recently, 273 citizens sent messages to local officials asking not to tinker with the sign ordinance. (Two people wrote for electronic billboards.) A recent Convention & Visitor's Bureau poll showed 9:1 support for Durham's successful billboard ban.

Voices in the community have clearly spoken in support of Durham's successful billboard ban. Why would officials want to vote against the community?

Seeing the opposition, the billboard industry is using the same tactics they've used elsewhere -- giving out free ad space for nonprofits to pressure officials. This means taking down billboards in East Durham for gun shows in Raleigh -- and putting up cute PSAs for stray dogs and cats.

Apparently, billboard industry lobbyists are now arguing that making their non-conforming billboards permanent fixtures would help Durham with revenues. Hardly. Industry pays tax on their property based on an appraisal that evaluates it as personal property. It's not evaluated as income producing real estate - what's called "income capitalization."

All of Fairway's billboards now produce about $2,600 in county tax
revenue/year. Even if the change in the law increased billboard tax revenues by 10 times, it would still bring in less than 10 average single family residences. So, switching to electronic billboards would not generate significant revenue.

If we allow electronic billboards, and local officials ever wanted to remove one for any reason, Durham taxpayers would have to compensate billboard companies for all future lost revenues. For a billboard, blinking more than 10,000 ads/day, that's a lot of money taxpayers would have to send to a company in Georgia.

Some have tried to argue that the new billboards will be better looking than the billboards the industry itself has allowed to deteriorate. Hardly. Few think that big, bright electronic billboards flashing ads all day will be an improvement.

Industry lobbyists told local media that their measure means billboards would be farther away from houses. Not true. Industry's measure allows industry to replace existing (non--conforming) billboards right where they are today (with the new ones rising on monopoles 50 ft into the sky).

Industry supporters have argued the measure will create more jobs. Huh? It might create another job for the guy in Raleigh switching electronic ads from his desktop. But the local crews who change billboard ads would have less work.

Then industry lobbyists tried to argue that we must have Silver Alerts among their billboard ads for cigar outlets and night clubs. Really?

We already have electronic Silver Alert signs on our highways in North Carolina. They're placed in a driver's line of vision -- right above the travel lanes. Durham's Reverse 911 now gives us a great tool to get the word out in an emergency -- in a much more comprehensive manner.

The billboard industry is apparently suggesting that drivers should look at three, five, maybe even seven ads -- way off to the side of the highway -- before a Silver Alert might appear on billboard screen.

We need to make our roads safer, not create driver distractions by placing electronic billboards flashing ads, brighter than daylight, on the side of our highways.

There's no compelling reason to overturn Durham's successful ban on billboards -- and many compelling reasons not to open ourselves to litigation.

To see video clips of electronic billboards, and letters of support from folks in the Durham community, visit supportdurhambillboardban.com

Industry insists that electronic billboards are not distractions for drivers. If that's really true, why are they spending so much money on lawyers and lobbyists to get them?