[Durham INC] Support Durham's billboard ordinance: Top 10 Reasons

[Mike Brooks]

  The Top 10 Reasons Durham Doesn't Need
  to Change Its Billboard Ordinance

10. "Durham citizens [in the Aug. 2009 survey] clearly support 
maintaining the current sign ordinance ... African-Americans supported 
the current ordinance 11-1, Caucasians 10-1, Hispanics 5.5-1, and 
Asians, 4-1. Recent arrivals to the area showed lower support ratios 
(4.5-1) than long-time citizens whose support for the current ordinance 
ranged from 8-1 to 20-1."

 9. "Digital billboards do indeed pose a safety risk to drivers due to 
their inherent distracting qualities ... Courts have agreed ... 'It is a 
given that a billboard can constitute a traffic hazard. It follows that 
EMCs [Electronic Message Centers], which provide more visual stimuli 
than traditional signs, logically will be more distracting and more 
hazardous.' "

 8. "Both noncommercial and commercial advertisers arguably receive 
better exposure under the current ordinance where their messages appear 
continuously than they would under a digital format where their exposure 
is eight seconds per appearance."

 7. "Digital billboards are designed to be the brightest item in a field 
of vision, and can be visible for miles at night. Even if digital 
billboards were deemed acceptable, the proposed language would not 
adequately protect Durham citizens ..."

 6. "The requested text amendment would create an unfunded initiative by 
imposing a significant new regulatory and enforcement burden upon the 
City-County Planning Department and possibly other departments."

 5. "Telephone numbers, Internet addresses, text message instructions, 
etc. are public safety hazards, and evidence has been shown of traffic 
slowing, even for AMBER Alert messages on official signs ..."

 4. "It appears that the total tax payment from all billboard companies 
[under a changed ordinance] would be well under $60,000 per year."

 3. "On balance, staff believes that the costs to Durham of implementing 
the applicant's request would outweigh any potential benefits."

 2. "It appears that the applicant's proposal contravenes federal and 
state law."

 1. "The Planning staff recommends denial."

All quotes are from the April 13, 2010, Planning Department report to 
the Durham City-County Planning Commission:

www.durhamnc.gov/departments/planning/zoning_committee/items/TC1000002_report.pdf;
No. 10-pg. 5; no. 9-pg. 7; no. 8-pg. 10; no. 7-pg. 9; no. 6-pg. 12; no. 
5-pg. 16; no. 4-pg. 16; no. 3-pg. 2; no. 2-pg. 10; no. 1-pg. 1.

For more information, go to: supportdurhambillboardban.com

>From Mike Brooks, Parkwood community, Durham

-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed