[Durham INC] Billboards: Kindly send reminder to Commissioners

[John Schelp]

folks,

Please email our County Commissioners a short and cordial reminder to "support Durham's current billboard ordinance..."

TO: commissioners at durhamcountync.gov

Commissioners got well over a hundred emails yesterday -- from Durham citizens who support Durham's current ordinance.

We don't have glossy reports, lobbyists, lawyers, one-sided polls, billboards with "facts" and a Raleigh-based mailing campaign. 

We do have a town standing in unity on this issue.


Thanks to Bull City Rising, below is information on the costs the County will incur if it passes the billboard industry's measure.

Also below are letters to the editor supporting Durham's current billboard ordinance. While you might not have the time to read them all, do take a moment to scroll down the page. Note that the authors are from Durham (not Wake). ;)

Please send a quick note to commissioners at durhamcountync.gov

have a great day,
John

****

Board of County Commissioners to hear digital billboards proposal Monday
Bull City Rising, 10 Sept 2010

As the saying goes, it ain’t over ‘til it’s over.  For those following the billboard industry’s request to allow ultra-bright digital signs that change message every eight seconds, it may be over Monday.  That’s when the Board of County Commissioners will resume a public hearing on the matter that was delayed on August 9, just one week after City Council voted unanimously to uphold the city’s current ban on digital billboards.

One factor acknowledged in City Council's decision was the outpouring of opposition to Fairway Outdoor Advertising’s proposal.  Many council members noted that night that they received over 1,000 messages in opposition to Fairway’s proposal, while they received less than 10 messages in favor.  We’ve covered the many reasons behind this deluge of emails, letters, and phone calls previously, and a quick read can bring you up to speed on the proposal.

What’s new, however, are the implications of City Council’s decision.  If the BoCC votes yes on Fairway’s proposal, it will only apply outside of city limits.  Additionally, the county is expected to be the sole source of funding for the proposal's implementation and enforcement costs.  These costs are estimated by the Planning Department to be up to $120,000 the first year, and $100,000 each subsequent year.

Many billboard opponents point to this sum as a good reason to vote no.  It is estimated that the new digital billboards will only bring in $28,800 a year in tax revenue, causing a revenue shortfall of up to $71,200 a year.  This is equivalent to the total cost of at least one full-time teacher position, a teacher that opponents argue will need to be fired in order to allow digital billboards.  Opponents further argue that this strain on the budget will all be an attempt to appease an industry that doesn’t follow regulations in the first place.

After City Council voted to oppose Fairway's billboard proposal, council members asked the planning department to inspect all current billboards in Durham.  It was previously estimated that at least 34 of the 94 billboards in the city and county were non-compliant.  If the cost to bring each sign into compliance is greater than 25% of the sign’s replacement value, then the billboard must be removed.  This, after all, is the original aim of Durham’s current billboard ordinances.

The billboard inspection process, currently still in its organizational steps, will be an important test of how well Fairway and its competitors play by the rules.  At the City Council hearing last month, Fairway’s representatives claimed numerous times that they wished to take better care of their billboards, but were barred from doing so by the current ordinance.  Councilwoman Catotti, and others, noted that this was absolutely incorrect.  Billboard owners can maintain their billboards, as long as they adhere to the 25% limit.  This 25% limit applies to any single project, so additional maintenance can be performed each year, for example.

Instead of doing this work, however, some billboards have been left to rot by their owners.  It remains likely that these signs may end up being removed as a result of the inspection process.

The failure of billboard owners to maintain their structures makes it easy to question the likelihood that Fairway will abide by its non-binding agreement to donate message space to non-profits, the only carrot dangled thus far by the billboard industry to entice votes for digital billboards.

Monday's BoCC meeting starts at 7:00 at 200 E Main St, downtown.

Source: http://www.bullcityrising.com

****

Letters to the editor from across the community (scroll down)... 

Letter: Commissioners urged to support current billboard ordinance
Herald-Sun, 11 Sept 2010

Our County Commissioners are urged to stand with the citizens of Durham and support our current billboard ordinance.

Any so-called "compromise" that allows big bright billboards of any sort in any location, blinking 10,000 advertisements a day, would open the door to lawsuits and legal challenges.

Once installed, electronic billboards would be very expensive for Durham to remove. Local taxpayers would have to pay the industry "just compensation" -- which would include the value of the property plus the exponentially increased revenues they generate for their owners. Compensation for removal would amount to millions of taxpayer dollars while the billboards contribute little to our tax base.

The costs of text development, implementation and enforcement of the billboard industry's measure would be borne solely by the county. Durham needs these funds for schools, sheriff and other vital county services.

Industry promises us PSAs. But once approved, Durham has no control over billboard content. Watch ads for cigarette outlets, gun shows and alcohol magically reappear on local billboards after Monday's vote.

Industry talks a lot about jobs. But Fairway has no employees from Durham on its staff. None. Hiring a computer guy in Raleigh to change digital ads isn't going to help a single person in Durham get a job.

Thankfully, our City Council saw through the smoke-screen and voted 7-0 to keep our billboard ordinance intact.

John Schelp
Durham

****

Letter: Thanks for the vote
Herald-Sun, 06 Aug 2010

I want to thank City Council for its unanimous support for Durham's current billboard ordinance. I encourage the County Commissioners to follow suit. The proposed changes will give billboard companies exponentially higher revenues with little financial risk while Durham taxpayers will get few economic benefits, no jobs, and be exposed to expensive legal fees to defend any changes to the current ordinance.

I am not persuaded by the industry's argument that posting silver and amber alerts on electronic billboards is a valuable public service. Silver and amber alert signs already exist along NC highways, placed safely above the driving lane line of vision to convey information without distracting drivers. Billboard messages would be redundant and drivers will be distracted by looking at billboards rather than the road. Billboards will blink and flash ads 24/7 while we only need amber and silver alerts when such emergencies arise. How dare they try to play on our concern for the vulnerable to advance their own interests.

People today rely on the internet, smart phones, and social networks for information. We can use them more effectively to publicize silver and amber alerts. They can be publicized on TV and radio and posted to media websites; sent to PAC and neighborhood mailing lists; emailed to the entire Duke community as a campus-wide message; and posted through city and county Facebook and Twitter accounts. All of these will reach a wider audience than electronic billboards that reach only those who happen to be driving past them.

Betty Greene
Durham, NC

****

Letter: Let's keep Durham's vistas beautiful
Herald-Sun, 29 July 2010

I stand with the vast majority of Durhamites who support our billboard ordinance. We have an obligation to protect the beauty of our community with its lush trees, picturesque lakes, clean air and beautiful vistas. If someone fouled our water or dirtied our air, we would want our government to step in and stop them. We are entitled to live without noise pollution and so we have adopted noise ordinances. Likewise, several years ago our government adopted ordinances to protect our community from billboards that cluttered the highways, sullied our vistas and created a view of Durham that we were not proud of. These ordinances were challenged in the courts, and we vigorously and successfully defended them as the billboard industry fought us all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now one company wants to do away with these protections. They have crafted cunning arguments for why these new billboards will be different, conned our sheriff to support them with slippery promises and chosen a time to make their pitch when we are all concerned about jobs. However, what little benefit that might accrue to a handful will not compensate all the rest of us for the loss which we will endure forever.

When we are trying to attract quality employers, why would we embrace the honky-tonk impact of billboard clutter that has been rejected by Morrisville, Chapel Hill, Cary and Raleigh? Please speak out in favor of our existing ordinance and boycott the businesses that advertise on billboards.

Robert Bo Glenn, Jr
Durham

****

Letter: No to billboards
Herald-Sun, 29 July 2010

Please don't change Durham's billboard ordinance.

Implementing the billboard industry's request would provide little economic benefit to Durham and require significant resources that the city and county lack.

Sherry Carty
Durham

****

Letter: Keep the ban
Herald-Sun, 29 July 2010

Please don't change Durham's billboard ordinance. In fact, protect, enhance and enforce Durham's billboard ordinance.

Billboards are plain ugly, distractive to drivers, and do nothing to enhance the prestige of Durham.

I always thought the late Lady Bird Johnson's fight to beautify America by getting rid of the ugly "forest" of billboards lining our nation's highways and byways was a great opportunity. However, nearly 50 years later, loopholes and special interest groups manage to keep them around and pollute our our nation's vistas, block visibility and impact highway safety. I can't imagine that a flashing billboard won't greatly increase driver distractions even further.

Let's not backtrack in removing these scourges from our landscape.

William Hoelscher
Durham

****

Letter: The other side of billboards
Herald-Sun, 28 June 2010

I just read "Billboard changes would enhance our community" by Paul Hickman, the general manager of Fairway Outdoor Advertising, a second time. Rarely have I seen such guile.

So that we understand his case for digital billboards, (a) they will enhance Durham's "high-tech image," so we can be proud that we have the latest in visual clutter, (b) we will continue to have billboards for over 500 years, so they may as well be the best, (c) Fairway will make so much money on these billboards that they will be able to afford to make a million-dollar annual gift and pay more taxes, and finally (d) billboards are "very environmentally friendly" because they don't use water, sewer, sanitation police or fire services -- I guess electricity doesn't count.

Hickman does not speak to the widely held view that billboards are unsightly and are a distraction to drivers. Billboards detract from the appearance of our landscape and often advertise things many of us would prefer not to know about, like topless bars (just look at Interstate 95 around Benson). Billboards in concentration, like they are on Interstate 85, already represent a distraction to drivers; digital billboards with messages changing every eight seconds would exacerbate an already bad situation.

Fairway Outdoor Advertising is headquartered in Augusta, Georgia. They operate in 22 states and have 19,500 billboards. Hickman is their general manager and billboards mean money to him. He doesn't care what Durham looks like.

Robert G. Harrison
Durham

****

Letter: No 'push' in billboard poll
Durham News, 01 Aug 2010

To the members of the Durham City Council and Durham Board of County Commissioners:

I recently learned that a representative of Fairway Advertising wrote to you expressing concern regarding a question in [the Dur]ham Convention & Visitors Bureau's] annual image survey about billboards.

Let me state clearly up front: DCVB has not taken a position on this issue. But I would like to set the record straight on some of the items in the letter.

Fairway claims DCVB conducted a "push poll" (defined as an attempt to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll,) which is utterly false.

Fairway stated that the poll was not scientific or accurate.This is not true.The questions were written (and fielded) by an independent research firm located outside Durham County. The results are generalizable to the Durham population at a 95 percent confidence rate with a margin of error of +/- 5 percent. The research company will confirm the results are statistically significant.

Fairway infers DCVB did not conduct a balanced poll addressing this topic. The question on billboards was intended as a simple snapshot of Durham citizens' views on the matter and was not trying to "lead" respondents one way or the other, but to merely get a sense for how the community felt about the issue.

DCVB routinely asks questions in its annual survey related to issues under discussion in the community.Ones in the past include the proposal for a Museum of Durham History; the proposal for a new performing arts theatre; thoughts on a prepared food tax; etc.This particular poll was conducted in August and September of 2009 after some dialogue had been underway in the community to inform the TDA [Tourism Development Authority].

I am not advocating for or against Fairway's research or the position they have taken, because DCVB has not taken a position on billboards. But since their letter maligned DCVB's role in this important community discussion I do feel compelled to set the record straight.

If you have any questions or would like to see the results of DCVB's earlier poll, please feel free to call or email me.

Shelly Green
Durham
Green is president and CEO of the Durham Convention & Visitors Bureau.

****

Letter: Neighbors say no
Herald-Sun, 12 April 2010

Tuesday evening, the Planning Commission will consider a proposal by lobbyists for the billboard industry to relax Durham's ban on billboards. They want bigger, newer, and in some cases, brighter billboards along Durham's major traffic arteries.

To this Durham's neighborhoods say "Don't mess with the billboard ban!" Durham banned billboards 20 years ago to eliminate ugly sign clutter and arrest economic decline. The measure had broad citizen and business support. Since then, half of the giant signs have come down and those that remain are on borrowed time.

Now that our city's star is rising, the last thing we need to do is spoil it all with an entirely new billboard blight. The industry's proposal targets neighborhoods like East Durham, Crest Street, Duke Park, Northgate Park, Morehead Hill, Duke Homestead, Burch Avenue and Tuscaloosa-Lakewood. These are the places Durham's ordinary folks call home.

No citizen who lives near I-85, 15-501, or Chapel Hill Boulevard should have to put up with massive, brightly lit signs towering over his or her home. After hearing from representatives of the billboard industry and considering their proposal, the neighborhoods of Durham's InterNeighborhood Council voted resoundingly against changing Durham's strict billboard rules. Durham citizens agree 9 to 1, according to a recent independent poll. The Herald-Sun agrees. On Tuesday, the Planning Commission should also agree to protect Durham citizens and protect the billboard ban!

Tom Miller
InterNeighborhood Council President

****

Letter: Great argument
Herald-Sun, 12 April 2010

In "City Must Keep Ban on Billboards" (April 8), Larry Holt and John Schelp make a persuasive case for opposing electronic billboards. [Copied below.]

Our existing ordinance has widespread support among Durham citizens who overwhelmingly do not want the dangerous distractions and blight of electronic billboards lining our streets.

Electronic billboards are sources of visual and virtual pollution and not a path toward reducing greenhouse gases; they are distractions to drivers; they will add nothing to Durham's economic base -- no jobs and no significant tax revenues; and should we ever remove them, we must compensate the owners.

Finally, while billboard industry officials tout electronic billboards as an advance, the reality is that billboards are the technology of the past century -- blaring blanket messages to a public that does not rely on them for information. Electronic media are transforming advertising through niche marketing. Today people depend on computers, smart phones, and Google for event schedules, entertainment venues, directions, and information about nonprofits, NGOs and government services.

Durham would be foolish to believe that electronic billboards are an innovative wave of the future. They are, rather, the last dying breath of a dinosaur industry. I urge Durham officials to respect the wishes of Durham citizens by supporting our current sign ordinance and representing our interests over those of the billboard industry.

Kelly Jarrett
Durham

****

Letter: Distracting drivers
Herald-Sun, 10 April 2010

Other cities are banning digital billboards and Durham is thinking about lifting its 25-year billboard ban?

As reported in USA Today on March 29, "more than a dozen cities around the nation have banned what some consider a growing external driving distraction: digital billboards." Other states and cities have placed a moratorium on digital billboards. Come on, Durham. We are a national leader in protecting our cityscape from unsightly, distracting billboards. Let's not give up our leadership edge. Don't lift the ban.

Meredith Emmett
Durham

****

Letter: Billboards are dumb
Herald-Sun, 10 April 2010

Durham teachers and professors take tremendous pleasure and pride in educating young and older minds. Durham boasts about the high percentage of progressive thinkers we graduate via public and private undergraduate schools, North Carolina Central University, Durham Technical College, and Duke University. How is it possible that this same city is even entertaining a proposal to undo Durham's long term billboard ban? Durham has spent a fortune to revitalize its neighborhoods and downtown. Do you really think that new flashing billboards leading to its center are in keeping with the aesthetics we have all paid and worked hard to achieve? Come on! I hope that I won't suffer disappointment and disillusionment, and that I can continue to trust our elected officials to vote against the lifting of the billboard ban.

Wendi Gale Winfield
Durham

****

Letter: Keep billboard ban
Herald-Sun, 09 April 2010

I remember well my very first drive off of I-40 along 1-85 into Durham. Suddenly I found myself remarking how scenic my drive had suddenly become. I then realized there were nearly no billboards. That first impression was part of what led me to move here (and pay taxes for nearly 13 years now). The billboard industry pays low taxes and contributes visual clutter which makes driving less safe.

Changing the current billboard ban is not — in any way — helpful to our city. Please oppose it! Thank you.

Marian Place
Durham

****

Letter: Hideous billboards
Herald-Sun, 11 April 2010

I am appalled that our local governments would even entertain a proposal to undo Durham's billboard ban. Just when our city is becoming the state's showcase for revitalization, are we really going to consider mucking it up with ugly billboards? Billboard owners pay practically nothing in taxes. They have no employees here. In a poll done for the Durham Convention and Visitors Bureau last year, Durham citizens voted eight to one against lifting the billboard ban. The Durham of the new century should not look like the Durham of 1975. I hope our elected officials will have the good sense to vote against this bad idea.

Ned Kennington
Durham

****

Letter: Support billboard ban
Durham News, 02 December 2009

I support Durham's current ban on new billboards, and I'm writing to urge you to resist the billboard industry's attempt to overturn our ordinance. Please support the current ban in upcoming votes.

The last thing we need is big, bright, blinking billboards on I-85, 147, 15-501 and 70. These would look trashy, waste energy, and might very possibly cause safety problems. Most outrageous of all, if Durham wanted to remove an electronic billboard for any reason in the future, Durham taxpayers would have to compensate the owners for lost revenues.

When it banned new billboards in 1984, Durham made a statement about community pride and self-determination. The very small amount of money these billboards would add to our tax revenues would be vastly outweighed by the negative message they would send about our community--that we are a bunch of dumb yokels willing to give up important community values, such as aesthetics, for next to nothing.

Mike Morris
Durham

****

Letter: Dangerous billboards
Herald-Sun, 16 Nov 2009

Allowing digital billboards can cost lives. Already, drivers speed along major corridors using cell phones, texting and even using computers. It is natural for colorful, moving lights to draw the eye. That is exactly what an advertiser wants. During this moment of inattention, a lethal crash may occur.

Fairway Outdoor Advertising wants more of these attractions along corridors including U.S. 15-501, I-85 and the Durham Freeway. Here, traffic ignores the speed limit, and is ripe for accidents. In addition to ads, advertisers will display public service announcements, again distracting drivers.

As a much-much older, but used-to-be-teenaged driver, I know the dangers of distraction on high-speed or even low-speed roads. Georgia's Fairway Outdoor Advertising should not profit by cluttering and threatening our area.

Burdette Connell
Durham

****

Letter: Keep billboard ban for better Durham
Herald-Sun, 31 Dec 2009

The day after the InterNeighborhood Council voted to support Durham's current ban on billboards, Fairway Advertising's local rep told a Herald-Sun reporter there wasn't widespread opposition to electronic billboards.

He was wrong. In a Durham Convention & Visitor's Bureau poll, support for Durham's existing billboard ordinance was nearly 9 to 1 overall (see results at supportdurhambillboardban.com). It should come as no surprise someone in advertising is trying to sell us a bill of goods.

Support for our successful billboard ban is widespread and strong across the community. Seeing all this support, industry is trying to pick off local nonprofits with free PSAs (a common industry tactic). Does anyone really think it's a good idea to get drivers to take their eyes off the road so they can be distracted by ads for cigarette outlets in Burlington -- and PSAs about teenage smoking?

If local officials ever wanted to remove an electronic billboard for any reason, Durham taxpayers would have to compensate billboard companies for all future lost revenues. For a digital billboard, flashing more than 10,000 ads/day, that's a lot of money taxpayers would have to send to a company in another state.

As we head into 2010, one certainly hopes no local official would take such an irresponsible risk with taxpayer money.

Keep in mind that the billboard industry lawyers are the same lawyers suing the county on another matter. If industry lawyers are this sue-happy now, think what will happen once they overturn Durham's ban on billboards.

John Schelp
Durham

****

Letter: Tacky billboards
Herald-Sun, 20 Nov 2009

My husband and I recently spent a week in Pigeon Forge, Tenn., which is highly commercialized.

The main street through the town is lined with stores, restaurants, hotels, and entertainment venues. There is a constant stream of signs and billboards, but the things that stood out above all else were the electronic billboards, which were so bright that I felt as if my eyes had been assaulted.

I was struck by how tacky they looked.

I would suggest that before our county officials seriously consider approving digital signs in our area, that they take a good look at the real things and consider how garish and distracting they really are. I am enthusiastic about most new technology, but this is something we are better off without!

Ann Rogers
Durham

****

Letter: Keep electronic billboards out
Durham News (N&O), 31 Oct 2009

Having just driven back from Watauga County on Sunday evening, specifically picturesque Blowing Rock, I witnessed one of three electronic billboards. How unsightly and distracting it was.

There on the side of the road, in front of large gray boulders covered with moss, and surrounded by rhododendrons, was a flashing sign advertising the stores located at Boone Mall. I've always been disappointed having to look at the traditional billboards on the side of the road while driving up 321 from Boone to Blowing Rock. The electronic billboard reminded me of why I spent the weekend in Ashe County, adjacent to Watagua, an area not full of homogenous housing developments and overgrown with strip malls.

Let's keep electronic billboards off of Durham's highways. Durham has too much charm and character to be undermined by these distractions.

Myers Sugg
Durham

****

Letter: Not hoodwinked by billboard PSAs
Herald-Sun, 2 October 2009

Readers may be wondering why those new billboards for non-profits are around town. The billboard industry is lobbying to overturn Durham's successful billboard ban.

A common industry tactic is to undermine public support for the current ban on electronic billboards by offering free billboard space to non-profit groups. (Hardly a costly move since many of their billboards are already blank.) Industry lobbyists have already been asking City Council members to name their favorite non-profits.

Billboard lobbyists have also argued Durham needs the revenue. Yet, billboards pay very little in taxes. According to the Planning Department, Fairway Advertising paid a total of $2,605.60 in taxes to Durham County last year. (And, if they're genuinely concerned about Durham revenue needs, why are the same lawyers suing Durham on another matter?)

Billboard lawyers said they'd re-introduce their measure back in May. That sound you've heard from them since May? Crickets chirping.

Happily, we've seen strong support for Durham's billboard ban. After all, who would want big, bright billboards on tall metal poles, blinking more than 10,000 ads/day? With the electronic ads constantly changing, we'd see PSAs for anti-drinking programs -- followed by ads for gin, vodka and whiskey. One wonders if this is the most effective message for the non-profits trying to reduce teenage drinking.

The good news is most folks haven't been hoodwinked by the billboard industry's tactics. We've been able to counter industry misinformation with a Web site showing pictures of blinking billboards and letters of support from the community -- supportdurhambillboardban.com.

John Schelp
Durham

****

Letter: No to billboards
Herald-Sun, 28 July 2009

The blight and visual litter associated with all billboards, electronic or traditional, is not good for Durham. Durham spent a fortune in the 1980s to clean up its image by removing a good portion of the existing billboards. That process continues, at a slower pace now, with the ordinances in place. Let's continue down that path. We don't need to look like Atlanta or Las Vegas. The lobby for this effort is disingenuous in portraying this change as having a major public benefit. It's all about profit, folks. Profit for a company that doesn't operate out of Durham. Jobs for folks who don't live in Durham. Let's publicly reject this deep-pocketed effort by Fairway Advertising and its representatives who tout that they care about Durham, while at the same time lining their pockets at the expense of our city and its image.

Myers Sugg
Durham

****

Letter: Billboards ugly
Herald-Sun, 23 July 2009

As a resident of Durham who recently returned from a trip to Atlanta, I find it distressing that our city is even considering adding the blight of electronic billboards to our landscapes.

On our trip through South Carolina and Georgia, I kept noting and commenting how ugly their highways were, with visual clutter bombarding in every direction. The newer electronic billboards were new to me. It appeared as an ugly mini-Time Square.

I returned home very proud of Durham and the other cities of the Triangle. Although we have some billboards in our community, they do not force your attention with bright lights, flashing color and other distracting elements.

Let's not make the existing situation worse. We should be setting the example on what to do right for our community and the Triangle, not leading in the wrong direction.

Robb Harrison
Durham

****

Letter: Better than billboards
Herald-Sun, 19 July 2009

I'm a three year resident of Durham and native of the state of Maine. In Maine, there is a state-wide ban on billboards. You cannot imagine how wonderful it is to drive down an interstate highway without the constant visual assault of huge, brightly colored ads.

Names of restaurants, lodging, places of attraction, etc., are instead signaled through smaller blue signs. Because these signs are of consistent size/color/font, they are so much easier and more pleasant to use to get information.

The aesthetic benefits of this are immense, particularly in states known for their natural beauty, such as both Maine and North Carolina. Additional environmental benefits include energy savings -- what a waste to light giant advertisements along roads in distracting, flashing colors while the rest of the country discusses how to reduce energy use and find alternative energy sources.

I urge Durham residents to support the ban on billboards and preserve both aesthetics and the environment.

Lynnette Batt
Durham

****

Letter: Beware of billboards
Herald-Sun, 13 April 2009

Who are they who want more billboards? Are they people who drive through the countryside looking for billboards, wanting to avoid seeing plants, animals, aged buildings, hills, towering mountains, quiet ponds?

Perhaps there are those who pray for junk mail, surf for commercials, save flyers left on their windshields, await telephone solicitations and like all the computer 'cookies' and pop-ups. And read a magazine from cover to cover, front to back, not missing an ad. Their favorite book -- the yellow pages?

My hunch is that those who advocate for in-the-face, unavoidable advertisements are those who profit politically and/or monetarily. It is in a business's self-interest to have access to consumers, day and night, to play upon our weaknesses and fears to create and influence our money spending.

Marketing and manipulation corrupts supply and demand.

Guidelines exist for shopping area designs for aesthetic reasons. Regulations also need to preserve and enhance beautiful the vistas of our state. Digital billboards! Billboards are not in the public interest. They are carefully designed to brainwash potential customers.

Our infrastructure (poor neighborhoods, roads, bridges, schools, public buildings, playgrounds) needs attention now.

Beware: We are being encouraged by business to give them our money.

Claire F. Jentsch
Durham

****

Letter: Blinking billboards are needless distraction
Herald-Sun, 10 July 2009

After the InterNeighborhood Council voted overwhelmingly against the billboard industry's attempt to overturn Durham's billboard ban, industry lobbyists are now targeting Durham's Crime Cabinet.

They insist we need big, tall, bright electronic billboards flashing 10,000 ads/day in exchange for Silver Alerts among the ads for cigars and whiskey.

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 City and County'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 arguing 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.

Talk about a distraction. Are we really going to ask drivers to move their eyes off the cars in front of them -- to wait through several ads to see a Silver Alert? And why wasn't the community invited to give its perspective at today's Crime Cabinet meeting?

We need to make our roads safer, not create driver distractions by placing electronic billboards flashing ads, brighter than daylight, right next to the highway.

To counter misinformation from industry, folks in the community created a Web site with video clips of electronic billboards and letters from across the community supporting Durham's current ban on billboards: http://supportdurha mbillboardban. com/

John Schelp
Durham

****

Letter: Billboards too bright
Herald-Sun, 10 March 2009

I just returned from Atlanta, where driving along the highway, I was disturbed by how bright the electronic billboards were. As they changed from one ad to the other, the movement of the colors and images was distracting, and the brightness was enough to make me squint.

And this was in broad daylight! I cannot imagine how disturbing these electronic billboards must be at night.

I would hate to see electronic billboards come to Durham. As a community that cares about the safety of drivers along busy streets, we do not need to let billboard companies put more signs up.

Aidil Collins
Durham

****

Letter: Dangerous idea
Herald-Sun, 28 Dec 2008

The Durham Freeway is dangerous enough already without added distractions. The proposal to install electronic billboards to the freeway is the worst idea yet and will only add to the mounting car accidents we now experience. We need fewer advertisements, not more.

Barbara Taylor
Durham

****

Letter: Roadside blight
News & Observer, 22 June 2009

The N&O reported on June 11 that the N.C. Outdoor Advertising Association is moving successfully in our legislature to allow more cutting of trees so that billboards are more visible on our roads.

This seems to be one more example of a well-financed interest group working against the public interest. Billboards are visual pollution, instant blight for communities that allow them. They harm the natural beauty of our state. Hopefully legislators will in the end act for the public good and not let this legislation pass.

John Sylvester
Durham

****

Lettter: This isn't Vegas
Herald-Sun, 24 Dec 2008

Electronic billboards? Who needs this? Not Durham, the "foodiest" city in the country, according to Bon Appetit. The best place to live and work, say several surveys -- a wonderful cultural crystal palace, the largest performing arts center filled with patrons. So we now are considering looking and acting like Las Vegas?

Please say no!

Sally Schauman
Durham

****

Letter: Electronic billboards will be dangerous
Herald-Sun, 24 Dec 2008

Driving safety is a great concern of mine, whether on back roads, city traffic, in parking lots or on highways. There are special problems to look out for in each of those locations, but one key element in driving safety is to be on the alert for unexpected movement or potential movement.

Are deer crossing the road at night? Is there a pack of cars approaching from behind, traveling 20 miles or more over the speed limit? Is someone moving out from the parking space directly behind mine as I attempt to back out? Is a bicyclist going to swerve from the sidewalk into the street? Paying attention to "background" visual components while driving is a major factor in avoiding accidents.

Electronic billboards would add visual disturbance to the driving landscape while making driving more hazardous. A non-electronic billboard may attract the driver's attention only when there are few driving distractions, but an electronic billboard (or a vehicle with changing electronic signage) is intended to be distracting. In the interest of safety, I urge Durham not to allow electronic signs.

Debbie Rubin Williams
Timberlake

****

Letter: No bright billboards
Herald-Sun, 28 Dec 2008

Old West Durham has everything that is good about a neighborhood. Everyone is welcome. There is a spirit of kindness and giving. Adults and kids walk together through the neighborhood, kids ride their bikes, and if you need help, there is always someone to lend a hand.

We all worked hard to make the neighborhood beautiful, we fixed up our houses, and planted trees and flowers. We share flowers from our garden and figs from our tree. There is a red-tailed hawk that lives our oak tree and an owl that sometimes visits at night.

It makes me so sad to hear that the billboard industry is trying to place bright flashing billboards near our Old West Durham neighborhood. This will destroy the peacefulness of our neighborhood at night. We have worked hard to make our neighborhood a good place for children and families. We don't need flashing lights in our bedrooms and the bedrooms of our children.

Victoria Seewaldt
Durham

****

Question of the Week: What do you think about the proposed digital billboards?
Herald-Sun editorial page, 31 Dec 2008

The following are representative responses posted on www.heraldsun. com to the Sunday Perspectives Question of the Week: "What do you think about the proposed digital billboards?"

Say no to bright, digital billboards

This does not seem to be in the best interest for our community. I like Durham descriptives such as grit, diversity, city of neighborhoods. Do we really need to know what the hottest Vodka brand is or where the best car deal can be had while driving down our streets? I vote NO to propaganda and bright, digital billboards. - Long time resident and neighbor.

==

Tacky distraction

I enjoy the skyline I see now from the Freeway as I drive to various destinations. Our skyline is something Durham's history can be proud of, and electric billboards would be a tacky distraction. I already hate all the alcohol and fatty food ads I have to see on my way out of the neighborhood I live in as is.

If your not supposed to watch DVD players in your car, electronic billboards along a street don't sound like a hot idea either. It's meant to take your eyes off the road and the science says that these ads succeed in doing that. Therefore, these electronic billboards have been shown to decrease safety along the roads they "grace".

Durham should decline companies that want to put up new billboards in our community.

==

Seen in Greensboro

From a friend...

Returning from Greensboro, NC to Durham yesterday along I-85 around 5:30PM there was this bright electronic billboard just outside of Greensboro which I had not seen before. It got my attention because it was extremely bright for that time of day. It was so bright and overpowering you could not read it. It was laughable because it was so useless. It over lit the area and it took a few seconds once I looked away for my eyes to adjust back to normal.

Further down the road in comparison, the old style billboards that have a fixed sign with lights shining up from the bottom was more readable and was better on the eyes for that time of day even though it added to the visual clutter along the road. You would think the billboard industry would know this but I assume the primary driver for them to go with the electronic LCD version is being able to flip different messages on a single billboard. I guess they did not realize that certain times of the day, these electronic versions would be useless because you cannot read them.

The light pollution from this one sign was extreme. Had there been more of these electronic versions along the road with one right after the other on both sides of the road, the light pollution would have been horrible, extremely distracting, irritating, and very blinding. You would be blinded for such long periods of time your eyes would never adjust back to normal so you can see the road. This major hazard and visual pollution should never be allowed.

****

Letter: Billboard revenue impact questioned
Herald-Sun, 29 April 2009

Saturday's Letter to the Editor says Durham should overturn the ban on electronic billboards because they'll provide "badly needed revenue."

Billboards are taxed as personal property at their value in materials, not based upon their income capitalization. As a result, they pay very little in taxes to Durham. According to the planning department, in 2008 Fairway paid just $2,605.60 in taxes to Durham County. Many single-family homeowners paid more (each) in property taxes.

And, a common industry tactic for undermining public opposition to electronic billboards is to offer free billboard space to non-profits. This explains why you're suddenly seeing non-profit billboards around town. The irony in this tactic is that the ads on electronic billboards are constantly changing. So, we can see PSAs for anti-drinking programs followed by ads for Bud Lite and Seagram's Vodka.

And, please reject the tired argument that the new billboards will be "better looking" (than the billboards the industry has allowed to deteriorate) . Not everyone thinks a big, bright electronic billboard, above the tree tops on tall metal mono-poles, flashing more than 10,000 ads/day, is "better looking."

To counter the misinformation coming from the billboard industry, folks in the community have created a Web site, supportdurhambillbo ardban.com

John Schelp
Durham

****

Letter: Blinding billboards
Herald-Sun, 1 Jan 2009

Electronic lighting of billboards on highways will be absolutely blinding to people who have some night blindness, problems looking at certain kinds of oncoming headlights and confusing to anyone who has a shred of dyslexia. Anyone who remembers driving I-40 through Durham during major road construction would affirm that navigating the blaze of flashing bright lights was difficult and confusing. For me it was scary as could be.

We are already forced to look at too much advertising. It is not worth the sacrifice of anyone's life. The experts need to step up and say no to electronic advertising on highways because it is dangerous.

Kris Christensen
Raleigh

****

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

****

Letter: Bad ads for Durham
Herald-Sun, 3 Jan 2008

Let us consider this idea of electronic billboards. On the "con" side are the following:

1) They are bad for the environment with staggering amounts of carbon pollution, plus light pollution.

2) They are distracting at best and dangerous at worst for drivers.

3) They would provide revenue to yet another distant corporation while giving nothing in return (have we not had enough of such corporate greed?).

4) They would cost Durham greatly if we decide later that we want to remove them.

5) They are tasteless, garish and annoying.

On the "pro" side? I am at a loss to find one thing to recommend them.

We know this is a bad idea. Please do not change Durham's ordinance to permit electronic billboards here.

Julia Borbely-Brown
Durham

****

Letter: Electronic billboards bad ads for Durham
Herald-Sun, 5 Jan 2009

Durham is a city of distinctive neighborhoods. I have the good fortune to live in one, Morehead Hill, a charming suburb established at the beginning of the last century.

Unhappily, if lobbyists for the billboard industry are successful, motorists coming off the Durham Freeway to Morehead Hill will be greeted by the considerably less charming sight of enormous, electronic signs, looming over the highway, garishly lit and impossible to ignore.

If the signs were merely tacky and gross it would be bad enough, but the most serious problem with the billboards is not aesthetic. The very quality that makes them desirable as advertising -- people can't avoid looking at them -- makes them dangerous. The captive audience consists of motorists driving down busy freeways who would be well-advised to keep their eyes on the road. As if to guarantee distractions, the flashing messages change every few seconds.

The billboards are also unhealthy for the environment. The conservationist group Scenic America estimates that just one sign has a "carbon footprint" equivalent to 13 houses.

The costs of electronic signs will be borne locally. As for benefits, the company promoting the billboards is based, not in the Triangle or even in North Carolina, but in Georgia. Many people have worked hard to improve Durham's image. Highway billboards would be a bad advertisement for Durham.

Lynn Kohn
Durham

****

Letter: No billboard blight
Herald-Sun, 7 Jan 2009

I am a home owner on American Drive in Durham. North Carolina is where I was born; I have always been proud of the state's concern for roads and nature.

The last thing we need is to have billboards as a blight on the beautiful Duke Forest setting. The woods and trails and trees are reasons for buying and living in this lovely area.

Please don't bring in what other states are doing away with. Let's keep Durham a leader and not succumb to billboard lobbying.

Whatever needs to be done to prevent it, I will be there.

Joyce Harvey
Durham

****

Letter: Billboard firm tries to buy support
Herald-Sun, 13 Jan 2009

Facing strong community opposition, the billboard industry has resorted to trying to buy local political support -- by handing out advertising space rent-free and making campaign contributions.

Billboard lawyers can deny this is a quid pro quo, but it definitely walks like a duck.

The Georgia company pushing this mess gave Downtown Durham, Inc. thousands of dollars of rent-free advertising space on a billboard -- shortly before the DDI board voted on the measure. The same company sent monetary contributions to elected officials -- before their vote on whether to allow electronic billboards in Durham.

Billboard industry representatives are now approaching City Council members and asking them to name their favorite non-profits. So when the industry tries to get approval from the Council, they can show a list of non-profits receiving "free" advertising.

Durham citizens are speaking out to oppose the billboard industry's move to stick electronic billboards near our homes, schools, churches and parks. We don't want to walk along New Hope Creek and see a big, bright billboard for used cars, face distractions on our highways by lit ads for double cheeseburgers or visit the new DPAC or the Hayti Heritage Center and see flashing billboards for outlet malls in Burlington. And, anyone calling for a compromise is really saying, "let's gut Durham's ordinance and allow digital billboards flashing ads 24/7."

Thank you, Herald-Sun, for exposing this latest move by the billboard industry. This sneaky attempt to buy support speaks volumes.

John Schelp
Durham

****

Letter: Send a message
Herald-Sun, 14 Jan 2009

Fairway Outdoor Advertising, the Georgia firm that wants to light up Durham with digital billboards, has given the mayor and each of the members of the Durham City Council substantial campaign contributions. In an effort to cinch the deal, Fairway also gave $28,000 in free advertising to the movers and shakers behind the prepared food tax that proved so popular with Durham voters. From the tenor of the recent letters to the editor, it seems that digital billboards are even less popular than the food tax. Fairway's lawyer sniffs at any suggestion of impropriety, denying any quid pro quo.

This is a rare opportunity for our politicians to prove that they cannot be bought, that powerful Georgia companies may supply the quid but our pols will never, never return the quo.

Steve Bocckino
Durham

****

Letter: No to billboards
Herald-Sun, 14 Jan 2009

It is time for our elected officials to speak up and do what we've elected them to do: Represent the citizens who are saying loudly and clearly, "No electronic billboards."

Your recent articles exposing Fairway Advertising' s efforts to curry support for electronic billboards among local officials and civic leaders suggest some reasons for their silence. You have reported Fairway has made financial contributions to local elected officials, in-kind contributions to Downtown Durham Inc, and contacted city and county staff to solicit their support for electronic billboards.

The silence of those who have received contributions from Fairway Advertising is deafening. Their constituents are waiting to hear from them. You have printed many letters from Durham citizens opposed to electronic billboards because they are a dangerous distraction for drivers, sources of light pollution, have huge carbon footprints and would be hugely expensive for us to get rid of.

I share these concerns. I cannot recall a single letter supporting electronic billboards. Durham citizens seem to be speaking loudly and clearly: We do not want electronic billboards in Durham. Fairway Advertising and the billboard industry want to change our ordinances so they can clutter our highways, streets and neighborhoods with electronic billboards. If you oppose electronic billboards, write the City Council, country commissioners and Mayor Bill Bell and encourage them to put an end to Fairway's efforts.

Betty M. Greene
Durham

****

Letter: Lighted billboards 'tawdry visual litter'
Herald-Sun, 16 Jan 2009

Lit, flashing billboards should not be permitted in our community. Please urge our elected officials to vote against these dangerous nuisances. I have sent the following to the Durham City Council and the Board of County Commissioners, and hope others will also write.

"Please do not allow those awful lighted, flashing billboards in Durham City or County. Regular billboards are ugly enough; if you want to do something about billboards, figure out a way to rid us of them altogether. In addition to upping the uglification factor enormously, these new ones are a hazard to drivers. The human eye is designed to respond to sudden motion in the environment ... so it is impossible not to look. Anything that distracts drivers ... is inherently dangerous and should not be permitted. I know the first time I saw one (right outside of Richmond ...), I nearly wrecked with another driver who was also looking at the ... billboard.

"They are also unbelievably bright, and at night compound the night vision problems of older drivers. I don't even want to think about how horrible it would be to have one within sight of any human habitation or work place. If you want to see how fast they turn a highway into a tawdry stretch of visual litter, just take a ride to Charlotte. ... the result is not pretty."

Kate Dobbs Ariail
Durham

****

Letter: Billboards are ugly
Herald-Sun, 17 Jan 2009

I ask Durham leaders, please do not allow any electronic billboards along our roads. This visual litter is ugly, distracting and creates unsafe conditions.

I hope this issue will be quickly put down, so work can begin on tackling overdue problems that prevent Durham from being a shining first-class city, such as:

* Re-surfacing our roads in substantial quantities.

* Turning bike and pedestrian plans' recommendations into realities.

* Getting a linear east-west bus connector route running from the west end of Main Street to East Durham with 12 minute cycles.

* Installing benches and shelters at bus stops.

With the stimulus plan and new NCDOT leaders coming around, is the city getting projects online to address our maintenance backlog and long-suffering transportation infrastructure deficiencies?

Please fix the Downtown Loop and the mess of one-way, north/south freeways (Gregson, Duke, Roxboro, Mangum) running through the center of town that makes getting around illogical for visitors and frustrating for residents.

Now that the state DOT isn't doing maintenance, there's no reason for the city not to take over these roads and return them to two-way travel.

Back to the distracting matter at hand, our leaders should vote no on any electronic billboards and help prevent turning Durham into a low-class, illuminated highway pit stop.

I don't want to see digital billboards -- no matter how many freebie messages Fairway devotes to non-profits.

Dave Wofford
Durham

****

Letter to the editor: Signs shouldn't change
Durham News (N&O), 24 Jan 2009

I'm not sure I understand why some people say we don't know what Fairway's proposal is. They have put it in writing to the city and county twice and they explained it to us at the last Inter Neighborhood Council meeting. Assuming that they meant what they said, I think I understand their proposal very clearly. ...

Based on what I know, which is what Fairway has told us, I oppose their proposal to change Durham's zoning ordinances to allow them and their competitors to upgrade their billboards. I oppose the proposal on all its points. Remember, under the proposal, some signs would change to the flashing variety, some would be moved, and others, pole-mounted, would be put on steel masts. All of the billboards in question are nonconforming uses and they shouldn't be upgraded. It isn't fair, and it is contrary to Durham's sound and successful policy. There is no public need for billboards and there is no compelling reason to treat this industry better than we treat any other citizen who could make more money if he could get special treatment under the zoning ordinances.

Tom Miller
Durham

****

Letter: No to billboards
Herald-Sun, 31 Jan 2009

From my reading of the issues regarding digital billboards, I can find no benefit for the residents of Durham city or county.

They are a hazard to drivers, worse than cell phones. The eye can't resist looking at a bright, moving, lighted object. They increase light pollution. To the boards that will make the decision, please vote against placing any of the digital billboards in the city or the county.

G. Bennett Myers
Durham


****

Cartoon in the Durham News (N&O)...

Fairway: Lobbying for electronic billboards

http://www.thedurha mnews.com/ 138/image_ media/184983. html

****

Letter: Lighted billboards would be distraction
Herald-Sun, 5 Feb 2009

Regarding your editorial of Feb. 2, "Let's allow a few digital billboards." I must respectfully disagree with your reasoning. The last thing we need on our roads and highways is another distraction, and that is exactly what it would be -- a distraction!

It's already frightening enough for drivers to not fully concentrate on what should be their main priority, which is paying attention to their driving, and not talking on cellphones, eating, drinking and other matters that take away from driving.

It's bad enough that the public has to deal with speeders, tail-gaters, red-light runners and lane-changers. Whoever is to make the final decision on this matter, please do not allow this to happen.

Jerry Clem
Durham

****

Letter: Sink this scam
Herald-Sun, 11 Feb 2009

I hope the City Council will not be duped into accepting the dangerous and destructive plan to allow electronic billboards.

If it goes through, there will undoubtedly be more accidents. Not every driver has an equal ability to focus on the road when giant bright lights with changing images are right before them.

We have many aging drivers on the road. Why increase the chances that one of them might run into you? Also, young new drivers may be at greater risk for distraction.

This electronic billboard idea is bad for many reasons: environmental, financial (if we ever wanted to remove them, Durham taxpayers would have to compensate for lost revenue to the advertisers; that locks us in), general eyesore near residential neighborhoods.

But I think traffic safety is the no-brainer that ought to sink this scam.

Susan Baylies
Durham

****

Letter: Intrusion unneeded
Herald-Sun, 11 Feb 2009

As has been eloquently stated by many of my fellow Durham citizens, there are a multitude of safety, environmental and beauty concerns about the introduction of electronic billboards to Durham.

I saw one last night outside of Greensboro and, yes, it distracted me the amount that it was designed to do. I do not remember the multiple things being advertised while I looked at the billboard instead of the road. I do remember feeling quite certain they had no redeeming qualities.

My wonderful Durham neighborhood does not need the intrusion of these ugly things. Especially in this struggling economy, my Burch Avenue neighborhood does need help in improving the safety, environment and beauty of our surroundings. Our residents need assistance in improving their homes.

Allowing electronic billboards will ultimately make it harder for us to fund the assistance programs we need.

No to electronic billboards in Durham (and everywhere else).

Sue Unruhe
Durham

****

Letter: Tacky signs
Herald-Sun, 11 Feb 2009

Regarding the interest in adopting large, lit billboards along I-85, U.S. 15-501 and 70 and N.C. 147, I truly hope that the Durham Chamber of Commerce will reconsider.

I have seen cities where this is allowed, and the advertising is gaudy and an eyesore. As a citizen who has chosen not to watch television, particularly because of advertisements, nor do I listen to radio stations with advertisements, I find it annoying enough that advertising agencies find ways to reach me anyhow. They simply cannot accept that a person should be able to go out for a walk or a drive and have a moment's peace without advertising.

I accept that there will be some billboards, but why must we now make them bright and electronic? Please, Durham already has enough light pollution.

Let's work at beautifying Durham and creating a city where people are still able to enjoy some semblance of nature. Let's build revenue through our independently owned restaurants and stores. Let's make Durham desirable by promoting a range of educational options and great schools. Build bike lanes and sidewalks and gardens.

People will want to be here. They already do, and we don't need tacky signs to make money!

Rebecca Slaughter
Durham

****

Letter: No lighted billboards
Herald-Sun, 12 Feb 2009

I object to electronic billboards and also to adding billboards in Durham County for the following reasons:

* Aesthetic. Durham has too many major entrances to the city that are unattractive -- we should not make them worse.

* Energy. Even if low energy lights were used, adding an unnecessary use of electricity would be in opposition to our city's carbon reduction plan, to Gov. Beverly Perdue's ideas for a greener North Carolina, and to President-elect Obama's energy policies.

* Light pollution. We have a great number of bright lights at night which are distracting and which hide the night sky -- and light pollution is a matter of concern for many of us.

Cavett French
Durham

****

Letter: Keep billboard ban
Herald-Sun, 4 Feb 2009

The billboard industry is trying to overturn the current ban on electronic billboards in Durham. This move would open the door and allow big, bright, blinking billboards on I-85, 147, 15-501 and 70. Overturning the ban would allow large, lit billboards near homes, schools, parks and places of worship.

I-85 is dangerous enough already without added distractions to drivers. There is no compelling reason to overturn Durham's ban on electronic billboards. Let's never forget the words of Willie Lovett: Who will benefit ... who will pay?

Jackie Brown
Durham

****

Letter: Neighborhood group rejects billboard spin
Durham News (N&O), 1 April 2009

In a stinging defeat for the billboard industry, the InterNeighborhood Council voted last week to support Durham's current ban on billboards.

Billboard industry lobbyists have desperately tried to spin their defeat another way. But the fact remains that the billboard industry could only find two neighborhood representatives in all of Durham to support their position. Two.

Many thanks to all those who took the time to understand the issue and vote against the billboard industry's attempt to put up big, bright billboards -- blinking more than 10,000 ads/day.

If you want to help stop the billboard industry from sticking electronic billboards near our homes, schools and parks, check out our new website at supportdurhambillbo ardban.com

John Schelp
Durham

****

Letter: Don't get distracted
Herald-Sun, 1 April 2009

I'm disturbed by Rosemarie Kitchin's March 22 letter supporting electronic billboards on Durham highways.

Kitchin likes "seeing ... messages that deliver good information to a target audience." When I'm driving, I like to watch the road. I want the drivers going 70 mph around me to watch the road too.

There are plenty of other venues for ads and information without resorting to more visual clutter on Durham's highways. And I don't like being a "target." Did Kitchin learn to talk about people as targets at the "renowned journalism school" she gives as qualification for her opinion? Does it bother her that the billboard company peddling its signs sees us as targets? Did her journalism professors talk about advertising' s infiltration of every aspect of modern culture -- so that we don't even realize we're being targeted but instead help the process along?

Kitchin says the electronic billboard she saw recently didn't hurt her eyes. What about the studies that show these billboards compromise night vision for people? What about seniors and others whose eyes are sensitive to bright light? They drive too.

Kitchin says travelers (targets?) will "come spend money in Durham" when they see these billboards. Is getting money for Durham a worthy motive for allowing electronic billboards -- which have been shown in numerous studies to distract drivers and increase accidents? How low will we go? Let's hold ourselves and our city to higher standards.

Frances Kerr
Durham

****

Guest Column: Protect Durham from ugly
by Kelly Jarrett and John Schelp, Durham News, 8 August 2010

Heartfelt thanks to the Durham City Council for protecting our community from ugly. Several points emerged during and after the council's public hearing on the billboard industry's attempts to overturn Durham's successful billboard ban:

* If the county were to approve the billboard industry's measure, it would only be effective outside the city. All of Durham's digital billboards would be in the county.

* The costs of text development, implementation and enforcement of the billboard industry's measure would be borne solely by the county with no city participation. (Planning staff is calculating an estimate of these costs.)

* Industry's measure is a very costly proposition for taxpayers - funds we need for schools, sheriff and other important county services.

* Why is a Raleigh-based billboard company (whose leader lives in Wake County) targeting Durham County instead of starting with Wake?

* Overwhelming testimony that while industry "talks" about PSAs for nonprofits, you don't see them in areas with digital billboards. And if the ordinance were to pass, we would be unable to enforce Fairway's commitment to provide PSAs. Fairway (or subsequent managers) could decide not to provide PSAs - and we could do nothing about it.

* Fairway admitted it has no employees from Durham on its staff. None. And it has hired no staff in local offices over the past five years.

* Nonprofits and local businesses that advertise on digital billboards tend to reduce budgets for advertising in local newspapers and other advertising outlets. This will take additional monies out of local economy and reduce support for local businesses, especially Herald-Sun, N&O, Independent and other media outlets.

* As reported by a council member during the hearing, local nonprofits reported no increases in client referrals or donations while their ads were posted on Fairway billboards.

* If only we can get the Chamber of Commerce to work as diligently on violence, affordable housing, clean air, jobs, Shop Local campaigns and youth issues - as they worked trying to get digital billboards in our community.

* The chair of the Durham Committee supports the current billboard ordinance (and called industry's presentation nothing but "spin").

* Fairway has located multiple "Gun & Knife Show" billboards along our roadways and abutting Durham neighborhoods.

* Industry lawyers continue to tell officials half-truths when they say their measure will allow them to move billboards away from homes. They neglect to say the measure (which they wrote) allows industry to leave billboards right where they are - next to homes, churches, parks, schools and pedestrian bridges named after Civil Rights heroes.

* Commissioners have received more 1,000 emails supporting Durham's billboard ordinance - and fewer than 10 e-mails pushing digital billboards.

* Billboards for national companies and businesses outside Durham will not direct resources to Durham businesses or contribute to Durham's economy.

* Unanimous support for current ordinance by City Council, planning staff and Planning Commission. County commissioners who support Fairway proposal will face Durham voters, not voters in Raleigh and Greensboro.

* Billboards display 24/7, while Amber/Silver alerts are rare. Police departments are already trying to opt out of billboard alerts elsewhere.

* The state has its own series of official message signs for Amber Alerts. They're designed to provide the information for motorists to react with the least possible distraction from their driving task, because they are designed in accordance with safe highway practices as mandated by the U.S. Department of Transportation. In contrast, the Amber Alerts on billboards have no official sanction, and often display useless and unnecessary information. As a result, rather than communicating an important message in a non-distracting way, they require the motorist to take his/her eyes off the road for extended periods to read the material on the billboard. (Scenic Michigan)

There's a reason our City Council voted 7-0 against industry's measure. They found no compelling benefit for Durham. All eyes turn to the county commissioners.


Kelly Jarrett and John Schelp live in Durham.

****

Column: Preserve limits on billboards
By John Schelp & Larry Holt, Herald-Sun, 28 July 2010

In recent weeks, the billboard industry has increased its pressure on local officials to overturn Durham's successful billboard ordinance.

The industry is using the same tactics in Durham it has elsewhere: campaign contributions to officials who will vote on industry's measure, horse-trading with cash-strapped nonprofits to pressure local jurisdictions and a synthetic-roots mailing campaign, using prepared support letters mailed to local officials in Fairway Advertising envelopes with Raleigh postmarks. These tactics all came to light in the controversy that followed their recent press conference (Billboard battle erupts over PAC 'backing' 06/26/10 Herald-Sun).

According to the Planning Department, "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.

Industry's long two-year campaign to change minds hasn't worked. Sure-fire billboard supporters have backed off. Earlier this year, officials received more than 500 emails supporting Durham's current billboard ordinance (and only three for electronic billboards).

Seeing widespread community opposition, billboard industry lobbyists and lawyers assert that their measure will move billboards farther away from our homes. But the proposal itself, which was written by the billboard industry, actually states that billboards would be allowed to stay right where they are. Old illegal signs could be replaced with new electronic billboards that rise 50ft in the sky, brighter than daylight, blinking 10,000 ads per day. Other electronic billboards could be located as close as 200 feet to a house. It’s disingenuous truth-spinning for industry to claim their new billboard measure will move billboards away from homes.

The industry is attempting to buy support by promising to include Silver and Amber Alerts on its billboards. North Carolina has already spent millions on electronic message boards safely positioned above travel lanes to post these alerts. Putting important messages on electronic billboards would require drivers to take their eyes from the road to watch a billboard beside the highway and read multiple ads between alerts. The risk distracting billboards pose to public safety on our roads outweighs any benefit of the industry’s much-touted messages that duplicate information already available on the state's e-signs.

Last year, Durham law enforcement officers issued a statement asserting that small cardboard signs in traffic circles were an "inappropriate and potentially dangerous" distraction for drivers. "We fear that these signs could be a distraction to even the most law-abiding motorist and possibly cause collisions."

If small signs in traffic circles are a potentially dangerous distraction for drivers, how much more so big, bright electronic billboard flashing 10,000 ads a day?

Fairway claims Durham's sign ordinance hasn't reduced the number of billboards here. Not true. Durham has successfully gone from about 200 billboards in 1984 to around 90 today.

In its mailings to elected officials, the billboard industry says its measure will "enhance community aesthetics" and "advance Durham" and that we need to get rid of our "out-of-date" ordinance. Support for our current ordinance reveals that most folks don't think going back to the 1970's is "advancing" Durham. Billboards themselves are an out-of-date technology in an internet and cell phone age.

For 25 years, the billboard industry has allowed its billboards to get run-down rather than maintain and improve them. After doing so little to "enhance community aesthetics" for years, they now have the nerve to say we should support their measure so they can improve their run-down billboards. Why should we reward an industry that has deliberately let its product become an eyesore in our community?

It adds insult to injury that the Chamber of Commerce, which receives $128,000 in annual taxpayer subsidies, is disregarding citizen preferences to lobby local officials to let a Georgia company stick electronic billboards near our neighborhoods.

We need to protect Durham's successful billboard ordinance, not gut it.


Note: The authors live in Durham. To see maps, photos and letters of support, visit supportdurhambillboardban.com

****

Guest Column: Community supports Durham billboard ban
by John Schelp, Durham News, 30 June 2010

First the billboard industry writes a new ordinance that would undo Durham's successful billboard ban, allow electronic billboards and open the door to lawsuits from others wanting additional changes to our sign ordinances. Then the billboard industry and its proxies give campaign donations to local officials. Then the billboard industry gives sign space to local nonprofits, so industry lobbyists can put pressure on officials.
Now the billboard industry is orchestrating a mail campaign, sending letters to elected officials, supporting their attempt to overturn our billboard ban.

The letters are postmarked from Raleigh and mailed in Fairway envelopes - as in Fairway Advertising, the company that helped write the measure that would overturn Durham's existing billboard ban and bring electronic billboards to our roadways.

Trying to buy votes, horse-trading with cash-strapped nonprofits to pressure officials, this latest push using out-of-town postmarks - these are the same tactics that the billboard industry uses in communities across the country. It's all synthetic-roots campaigning at its finest.

And let's be clear, doling out free ad space is not a great sacrifice for local billboard companies whose biggest client appears to be "Billboard Available." Our elected officials are too smart to fall for the billboard industry's manufactured letter campaign from Raleigh.

Durham citizens support our current ban on billboards by a 9:1 margin. Durham's Environmental Affairs Board, the Herald-Sun, Planning Commission and Durham's InterNeighborhood Council have all come out against the billboard industry's measure. The Durham News published three supportive political cartoons. The Independent Weekly posted a map of all the billboards in Durham, showing one asking motorists why they should patronize Durham businesses - when they can go elsewhere. Neighborhoods from across the Bull City have endorsed our successful billboard ban. Before the Joint City-County Planning Committee met, local officials received more than 500 messages supporting Durham's billboard ban (and only three for electronic billboards).

Seeing strong opposition in the community, billboard industry lobbyists are now mailing so-called "facts" to Durham officials. One "fact" says it's very safe to look at a billboard while driving. (Kind of like BP lobbyists saying their oil spill is "very modest.")

Another fact says their measure would allow billboards to be moved. What it doesn't say is the billboard industry's measure would also let non-conforming billboards stay right where they are. Take a look around Durham. Most billboards are in certain areas of town. (Look no farther than the billboard in East Durham for a gun show in Raleigh.)

Billboards in Durham are now in violation. Once we make these non-conforming billboards legal, the door is open. It can't be closed. There's no compelling reason to overturn our successful ban on billboards - and plenty of reasons not to.

Overturning the ban would open taxpayers to expensive legal fights. (Just look at how long billboard lawyers have dragged out this one ordinance measure.) We'd also have to pay the cost of all future revenues for billboards that have to come down for road widening projects.

The City Council is scheduled to vote on the billboard industry's measure on August 2; the county commissioners on August 9.

Why would any official jeopardize local funding for schools, police protection, social services and libraries just so industry can erect big bright billboards blinking 10,000 ads/day? Why would the council and county commissioners vote for a measure that was written by billboard industry lobbyists?

Officials should not stand by and allow our public landscapes to be marred forever by a corporate giveaway to a private billboard company in Georgia.


John Schelp lives in Durham. To see maps, photos and letters of support, visit supportdurhambillboardban.com

****

Column: City must keep ban on billboards
By Larry Holt and John Schelp, Herald-Sun, 07 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.

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-to-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 per 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 per 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.

****

column: Electronic billboards still a bad idea for Durham
By Larry Holt & John Schelp, Herald-Sun, 24 March 2009 [submitted version]

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://supportdurha mbillboardban. 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.

****

Column: Not enough lipstick in the Carolinas for this bad idea
By John Schelp and Larry Holt, Herald-Sun, 21 December 2008

A Georgia billboard company is asking Durham to open the door to allow electronic billboards along roadways that flash new ad images every few seconds.

They look like huge flat screen TVs on a stick -- bright lights that change messages every 4-5 seconds.

The advantage of billboards for advertisers -- according to Advertising Age, an industry publication -- is that billboards are: "not an on-demand medium. You can't choose to see it, you have to see it."

Readers can see these electronic boards in the Triad and near Richmond. These bright panels dominate the night horizon. They are a distraction and a danger on Interstates and roads in congested urban areas. And we don't need them in Durham, next to our streets, homes, and neighborhoods.

Scenic America calls electronic billboards unsafe, unsightly and un-environmental at any speed. Billboards are effective only if you look at them, they are designed to draw your eyes off the traffic in front of you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found that anything that distracts a driver for more than two seconds from the road ahead, "significantly increases the chances of crashes and near crashes." Scenic America estimates that it takes up to 5 seconds to understand the billboard messages. (Source: www.scenic.org)

The ever-changing images on electronic billboard cause drivers eyes to linger especially long, as viewers wait to see what's next. The billboards are especially eye-catching at night, when they are the brightest objects in the driver's field of vision. Designed to deliberately distract drivers, these electronic billboards create an unsafe environment on the road -- even for motorists who try to ignore them.

Not surprisingly, the billboard industry takes exception to these findings and has sponsored its own special studies insisting that flashing billboards are perfectly safe. But, in an embarrassing setback for the billboard companies, the Wachtel Report concluded that the industry's studies were not supported by scientific data: "Having completed this peer review, it is our opinion that acceptance of these [industry] reports as valid is inappropriate and unsupported by scientific data, and that ordinance or code changes based on their findings is ill advised."

If safety concerns alone aren't enough to make us reject electronic billboards, there are environmental concerns and risks for Durham taxpayers. Scenic America estimates that one electronic billboard equals 108 tons/year of carbon dioxide. The carbon footprint of one of these billboards is equal to that of 13 houses. When we're all switching our home lamps to florescent bulbs to reduce our individual carbon footprints, why would we want to increase the carbon footprint of our advertising billboards?

The Highway Beautification Act requires cash compensation if billboards ever have to be moved or taken down. Scenic America reports that "compensation is usually defined as the value of the structure, plus lost revenue, making each digital sign worth millions of dollars." Because electronic billboard images do change, multiple companies can advertise on them simultaneously, significantly increasing their revenue value. Once a standard billboard goes electronic, the compensation required to remove it will be prohibitive. Do we really want to make taxpayers liable for huge bailouts to the billboard industry? Do we in Durham really want to expose ourselves to millions of dollars of risk so a company in Georgia can make more money?

Why go there? Existing billboards are currently "grandfathered" into new zoning standards as nonconforming uses. Building new billboards or upgrading existing ones is prohibited in Durham.

Several years ago, the Durham InterNeighborhood Council was instrumental in working with Durham officials and communities across the state to end billboard blight in the Bull City.

It was therefore surprising to learn that the sitting INC leadership placed a presentation by the billboard industry on its Agenda -- without including a speaker who represents an opposing perspective or who could provide historical background on current zoning restrictions on billboards. As a result, this newspaper wrote an article that basically reported what the billboard industry said. After wading through the first ten paragraphs telling us what billboard companies want, we FINALLY get to hear from a Durham resident who calls the idea "awful for our community."

Constructing more billboards in Durham, electronic or otherwise, is not a citizen or neighborhood initiated issue. It was placed on the agenda because it serves the interests of the billboard industry and advertisers. Cluttering our roads and neighborhoods with brightly lit, attention-grabbing billboards is a terrible idea. We shouldn't let the industry try to change our ordinances to line the pockets of out-of-state businesses with no interest in Durham and in the quality of life of its citizens.

Durham has been receiving lots of national recognition in national publications for the things that make it such a vibrant and engaged community -- our restaurants and "foodie" culture, our revitalized in-town neighborhoods, the arts, and our local shops. The diversity of our economy and community is what makes Durham a desirable place to live.

The national ratings Durham got as one of the best places to live did not include brightly lit billboards flashing ads 24/7 along heavily traveled stretches of the Durham Freeway, 15-501, I-85, and U.S. 70 to the Wake County line.

There's not enough lipstick in the Carolinas to fix these flashy pigs on a stick. We all should strongly oppose this self-serving move by the billboard industry.

****