[Durham INC] After two years, we need closure (vote down billboard industry's measure before anything else)

[John Schelp]

The City Council is voting tonight on whether to overturn Durham's successful billboard ordinance.

We need closure. We need to vote down the billboard industry's measure -- before doing anything else.

--> Pls send a short/positive email to officials asking them to "support Durham's current billboard ordinance." Send TO: Council at DurhamNC.Gov, commissioners at durhamcountync.gov

The billboard industry had two years to develop an ordinance that has community support. They failed. 

Instead of working to improve their measure, industry spent its time and money on glossy reports, one-sided polls, lobbyists saying we almost have a "moral obligation" to get digital billboards, campaign contributions to officials voting on industry's measure, horse-trading with cash-strapped nonprofits to pressure local jurisdictions, lawyers whispering "facts," billboard ads for industry's measure, and a synthetic-roots mailing campaign using prepared support letters mailed to local officials in Fairway Advertising envelopes with Raleigh postmarks. 

Industry has done everything -- BUT what JCCPC asked them to do: come up with an ordinance that has support in the community. (So far, officials have received 850 emails supporting Durham's billboard ordinance, and only seven emails pushing digital billboards.)

The measure before Council tonight is virtually the same measure that industry introduced two years ago. They've made no attempt to improve it.

Again, the City Council should vote against the billboard industry's measure before doing anything else. After two years, we need closure.


"Implementing the [billboard industry's] request would provide little economic benefit to Durham and require significant resources that the City and County lack." And while switching to electronic billboards would not generate significant tax revenues for Durham, local taxpayers would have to pay the industry "just compensation" for lost revenues (which increase exponentially with electronic billboards) to remove any billboards in the future –- potentially costing taxpayers millions of dollars (Planning Dept memo, April 2010).

So, industry gets more money with little to lose and taxpayers open themselves to a ton of risk.

The Herald-Sun is right: If the billboard industry’s proposed changes are approved, we open a "can of worms" and risk a raft of very expensive lawsuits. The City attorney's office said that revising the ordinance could lead the City and County into "a legal minefield" when others demand the same special treatment for their signs.

best,
John