[Durham INC] Opposition to billboard industry's measure growing across the state (editorials, letters, etc)...

[John Schelp]

folks,

Helpful fact sheet & background information on the billboard industry's measure... http://www.dcvb-nc.com/cr/Pending_Billboard_Legislation_in_NC.pdf

Below are editorials and letters from across the state.

~John


"As for this dash toward electrified billboards, a U-turn would be best."
--Raleigh News & Observer editorial

Editorial: Billboards and bullies
Herald-Sun, March 7, 2011

Senate Bill 183 was supposed to be about how much the state charges billboard companies that want to remove vegetation from public rights-of-way.

The state statute charges $200 for permission to cut trees and bushes in order to improve the line of sight between the roadway and the advertisements.

The proposed bill raises the vegetation removal fee to $400 in the first sentence. The next eight pages spin out a number of other guidelines and, not incidentally, give billboard companies the right to change existing billboards to digital boards regardless of local ordinances.

"A legally conforming outdoor advertising structure or an outdoor advertising structure that is nonconforming only to local ordinances may be modified or reconstructed to an automatic changeable facing upon compliance with" five other requirements listed in the statute. (The other requirements include leaving images up for a minimum of eight seconds, taking no longer than two seconds to change between images, and requiring a space of at least 1,500 feet between digital billboards, about three per mile.)

The Durham City Council was unanimous when Fairway Outdoor Advertising asked the city to change its land-use ordinance to allow the digital displays in locations where it presently has signs. At the moment, billboard companies are allowed to maintain billboards that were erected before the city banned new billboards in the 1980s, but not upgrade or relocate them.

Durhamites have vociferously opposed any changes to the rules, and a two-year-old Durham Convention and Visitors Bureau poll showed that 72 percent of residents prefer the city's strict ordinance.

The Senate bill was introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Brown, a Republican car dealer coastal North Carolina.

As one might guess, Brown is rated as one of the most pro-business members of the N.C. Senate. (As a point of interest, the N.C. Outdoor Advertising Association not listed as a donor in finance reports from 2009 and 2010, when Brown ran for re-election.) His support for business interests over the expressed will of the people and their elected local governments has us clutching our pearls in frustration, not shock.

But the real outrage must be reserved for Sen. Bob Rucho, R-Mecklenburg.

Please note that Rucho voted for the "Health Care Freedom Act" because the federal health care plan is, in his view, a gross display of big government overreach.

So, he would obviously have an excellent reason for the kind of broad action that he abhors, right?

"Durham has done a lot of unusual things, like allowing the Mexican consulate to distribute things for licenses," Rucho said. "They go at a little different drummer's beat than the rest of the state because no one's put a challenge to them."

So Rucho's objection to billboards is that Durham is a maverick community that must be reined in by the state legislature?

Well, if that's not big government bullying, what is?

****

Editorial: Roadside attractions
News & Observer, March 8, 2011

We've been down this road before - the road that in the mind's eye of some legislators is lined with what is politely known as outdoor advertising, perhaps even using new technology that allows messages to be switched out and enhanced with changeable text. All lit up, too.

The proponents of billboards, for that's what they are, always manage to make a credible case for why their signs are useful, if not essential to the conduct of business and the convenience of motorists, and therefore should be given lots of latitude in where and how they are installed.

Those arguments are sure to be heard as the General Assembly takes up a measure to relax billboard standards. A key provision: "Automatic changeable facing signs" would be allowed, so long as they stopped somewhat short of looking like the displays one might find in Times Square. In other words, the sign could not use "flashing, intermittent, or moving lights, including animated or scrolling advertising." But other lighting embedded in the billboard evidently would be OK.

That bleary-eyed, middle of the night driver might think he's hallucinating, but maybe a billboard that does more than just sit there will be enough to convince him it's time to investigate the charms of the upcoming truck stop.

The bill also would loosen standards for tree removal in front of billboards - a long-standing quest of the outdoor advertising industry. And billboards could be upgraded even if they already were in violation of local ordinances.

As for this dash toward electrified billboards, a U-turn would be best. Advertising signs have their uses, but the current bill appears to be aimed squarely at removing rules that protect natural beauty. The distraction factor would rise as well - as if drivers needed more reasons to take their eyes off the road. And as for non-conforming billboards, there's certainly no good reason to trick them out with changeable displays. That's adding insult to injury.

Reader comments (excerpts)...

Great editorial.

We don't need big, bright billboards blinking thousands of ads a day for things our children don't need to see.

Local communities deserve the right to decide for themselves. Communities should be allowed to have some control over local ordinances, not some out-of-state billboard company.

Industry will counter with talk about jobs and badly needed tax revenues. This is nothing but spin. Contrary to industry assertions, tax revenues from billboards are minuscule. And after all their talk about jobs, hiring a computer guy to change digital ads from afar doesn't generate jobs. In fact, not needing as many road crews to change billboard signs would likely result in fewer jobs (not more).

To be clear, electronic billboards are not good for the community.

Once installed, electronic billboards would be very expensive for local governments 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 your tax base.

Tax dollars are needed to support schools, sheriff and other vital services -- before risking scarce local resources for an out-of-state billboard company.

While industry will talk about public service ads for nonprofits, you hardly see any in areas with digital billboards. If they got digital signs across the state, you wouldn't be able to enforce commitments from industry to provide PSAs. Subsequent billboard company managers could decide not to provide public service ads and you'd be stuck.

Industry will talk about Silver and Amber alerts. But, police departments elsewhere are trying to opt out of these billboard alerts.

The state already 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, according to Scenic Michigan, 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.

Nonprofits and local businesses that have digital billboard ads tend to reduce budgets for advertising in local newspapers and other media outlets. This will take additional monies out of the local economy and reduce support for area businesses. Billboards for national companies won't contribute much to the state's economy.

To our neighbors across the state, industry is trying to quickly move its measure to stick electronic billboards, 50 feet in the sky over your communities. Speak up. Scenic America, www.scenic.org/billboards, is a great resource.

Don't be hoodwinked by industry when they insist it's good for the community to erect billboards, brighter than daylight, next to our roadways.

This is not a partisan issue. Friends from across the political spectrum think it's a terrible idea to have big TVs in the sky flashing 10,000 ads/day near our homes, schools, parks and places of worship.

Get ready for some slick arguments from the billboard industry. They've already started talking about an industry study that claims their flashing billboards don't distract drivers; don't draw your eyes off the road. (We also have some nice oceanfront property to sell you near Boone.)

Once the billboard industry opens the door, and gets all their digital billboards up, the door can't be closed.

==

Thank you [comment above]. While the editorial alluded to safety, I think they could have put in an extra sentence "How long do you want a driver to take his eyes off the road while he's waiting for the sign to change?"

==

I hate these tacky signs--there just to remind us more vividly of what we cannot afford. In addition to being an aesthetic anathema, they have nothing to do with improving the lives of North Carolinians. Please let us know of any legislator who supports this bill who subsequently receives contributions from these interests. Their votes can be bought.

==

This should clearly be a local decision for goodness sake... But then again, with the middle class and the environment clearly in the sights of those whose creed is greed; not to mention the new majorities in the state legislature, I would guess that this is a done deal. PEOPLE, WAKE UP!

****

Letter: Billboard company boom
News & Observer, March 13, 2011

Please oppose Senate Bill 183. Of all the billboard legislation proposed for the last 30 years, this year's version is the most damaging and disrespectful to N.C. residents and local governments. It has one benefit: to enrich billboard companies and their executives, but at the expense of citizens, tourists and the natural beauty of our state.

SB 183 will allow unsafe, glowering digital billboards to be 1,500 feet apart, and other billboards to be only 100 feet apart in city limits, and 300 feet apart outside city limits. The bill also nearly doubles the permissible cutting zone of public trees to make billboards more visible. It includes an arrogant provision to override local ordinances that regulate billboards and tree cutting.

How ironic that these nine pages of welfare for billboard companies requires that $30 of each billboard permit fee "shall be used by the Department of Transportation for highway beautification projects." So, the closer the billboards, the more beautification money available, but the less space to beautify among the forest of billboards. Really, for $30!

This year is the United Nations Year of the Forests. Let's celebrate that: plant more trees, cut down more billboards and defeat Senate Bill 183!

Lois Nixon
Cary

****

Letter: The billboard genie
News & Observer, March 13, 2011

Your March 5 Triangle Politics article on Senate Bill 183 failed to mention that in addition to allowing billboard owners to convert existing signs to digital, the proposed law would also allow new billboards to be erected on highways around the state.

The tree-covered rolling hills of the Triangle were the first thing that attracted me to this place, and the unspoiled views remain a valuable asset.

SB 183 allows for billboards to be placed every 1,500 feet, on each side, of any interstate or primary highway system route. It also overrides local tree maintenance ordinances, and allows billboards already in violation of local ordinances to be converted to digital.

This bill will not create jobs, but it will reduce property values and erode quality of life. Take a drive down an interstate that lacks a billboard restriction and decide if you'd like to see that on the Beltline, U.S. 64 or Glenwood Avenue.

One of the things I don't miss about California is the annoying - and in the case of bright, flashing digital signs, outright dangerous - billboards on the highways. Take my advice: This is one genie you don't want to let out of the bottle.

Bob Fesmire,
Raleigh

****

Letter: Tree-cutting for new billboards?
Asheville Citizen-Times, March 8, 2011

I read with interest your article on the massive tree cutting, particularly in the sloped median, on I-40 between Black Mountain and Swannanoa. Do they plan to cut the trees planted in the median on I-240 or the 30 planted trees near Exit 55? Even with the crisis in the state budget, they are cutting now. Could it be to get ready for electric billboards?

A bill for electronic billboards (Senate Bill 183) is before the NC Legislature that will override local ordinances for tree cutting on state/federal roads to allow digital and tri-vision billboards every 1,500 feet on each side of the road and that increases the cut zone from 250 feet to 400 feet. It looks like the greed of a few will ruin our mountains yet. Not only are the Republicans gunning for women and children, the environment is definitely on their list. Hope the Black Mountain News does some investigation.

If they are cutting the trees to get ready for the billboards, even before the legislation passes, people need to know.

Marylyn Huff
Black Mountain

****

Sen. Brown Wants to Unleash the NC Billboard Industry
WataugaWatch, March 6, 2011

North Carolina Republican Senator (and Majority Leader) Harry Brown of Onslow and Jones counties wants to let loose the billboard industry, particularly the makers and hawkers of digital advertizing, on every North Carolina interstate or "primary highway."

To achieve that end he's introduced very quietly Senate Bill 183. If passed, it would (among other things)...

1. Allow digital ("automatic changeable facing") and "tri-vision" billboards every 1,500 feet on both sides of every major highway in the state. Advertisements must stay fixed for only 8 seconds.

2. Allow by right the conversion of any existing regular billboards to digital billboards, even if they are locally "nonconforming." In other words, this is a state law which would over-rule local ordinances regulating billboards. An example of Tea-Party-style small government?

3. Increase the "cut zone" (the clear-cutting of trees) around any billboard from 250 feet to 400 feet while also (you got it!) over-ruling any local tree-cutting ordinances.

So far as we can find, no mainstream newspaper in North Carolina has taken any note of this very bad law. Though there is a "No on SB 183" Facebook group growing.

Reader comments (excerpts)...

There is in our Founding document the claim that our constitution allows the government to promote the general welfare. Not having obstructions to clear sight lines on the road, not having distractions in the corner of your eye while driving, etc., are all good and legitimate reasons to limit billboards along public highways. But I kinda like the aesthetic argument. I think it was Ogden Nash, one of the wittiest versifiers of the previous generation, who wrote, "I think that I shall never see, a billboard lovely as a tree; indeed, unless the billboards fall, I'll never see a tree at all."

==
   
I'm with [above] on this one (mark THAT in your calendars)

Most incorporated towns in NC have sign ordinance of one type or another. We also have restrictions on sizes and types of signs allowed and have prohibited signs entirely on the new 421 "scenic hiway".

I could see an argument against "government taking" if we were talking about requiring existing signs to be removed. But, from what we have seem to be talking about here is a prohibition against new electronic billboards, not removal of existing ones.

==

This has nothing to do with property rights or small government. This bill (1) overrides local ordinances, moving more authority to a HIGHER level of government, and (2) the rights-of-way on which trees are cut to allow visibility of billboards are owned by the state (aka the people of NC!)

****

Letter: Oppose S.183
Herald-Sun, March 9, 2011





I write to you today to encourage you to oppose Senate Bill 183, which would allow digital billboards to be placed every 1,500 feet on state highways, and also allow them to replace billboards within communities and override local ordinances.

I came from a long line of North Carolinians. On my father's side we've lived in this state for over 200 years.

I live in Durham now and am employed at UNC Chapel Hill. Whenever I have travelled to North Carolina over the years, whether visiting or returning home, almost every time the James Taylor song "Carolina In My Mind" would come on the radio. It always lifted my spirits, thinking I was coming to the place I love.

The lyrics brought visions to my mind of tall green forests, sandy beaches, and graceful mountains. Nowhere in this song is there a reference to a glaring digital billboard flashing advertisements along the highway. These signs would be a blight upon our state, and would also be hazardously distracting to drivers on local roads as well as interstates.

We fought a hard battle in Durham to keep these unsightly things out of our neighborhoods. I am frustrated to see that S.183 would force these signs not only on Durham, the citizens of which have made clear that they are not wanted, but across our entire beautiful state. Please vote against this bill and allow local regulations to remain the best indicator of what is needed in our communities.

Celeste Copeland
Durham

****

Litter-On-A-Stick
BullCityMutterings, March 8, 2011

People in the business of marketing states and communities for visitor-centric economic and cultural development often jokingly refer to outdoor billboards along roadways as “litter-on-a-stick.”

Savvy tourism officials have long understood that any value in billboards comes at a huge expense to the sense of place so critical to generating travel in the first place, and businesses and organizations seeking to harvest interest en route have far more effective substitutes.

However, if the outdoor billboard industry gets the influence it tries to buy in the North Carolina General Assembly, we will see this type of litter popping up more than seven times per mile (every 1500’) and what tree barrier remains along state and federal roadways here will be swathed even wider to ensure each driver sees from one to the billboard to the next.6a00d8341bf9ae53ef0148c7fe1e53970c

The industry wants to blink 10,000 messages a day per billboard, mushrooming multiple times the 1 million advertising images we’re bombarded with per person per day already via all mediums.

Oh, and they want to take regulation away from local communities so they aren’t able to protect their “unique sense of place” especially destinations like Durham which has prohibited new billboards for more than two decades now and soundly rejected the outdoor billboard industry’s similar ploy last year.

Sound familiar? The tobacco lobby tried the same thing in 1993 in an effort to derail but unsuccessfully thwart smoking bans. Judging by the two people I know in the outdoor billboard industry, they seem honorable but as a whole the industry is a bully as noted in yesterday’s excellent Herald-Sun editorial.

The outdoor billboard industry is evocative of the “bullies” reigned in at the end of the 19th century by Governor and then President Teddy Roosevelt: disrespectful, self-righteous and feeling more than a bit “entitled” to play rough and loose with the view-shed or field of vision that belongs to the public.

The usefulness of advertising in general is seriously threatened by its ubiquity and “less is more” right now. But outdoor billboards are obsolete and remarkable now by their absence.

Outdoor billboards belong now only in museums or preserved as artifact like the one restored atop the historic Old Bull Building in Durham, a national historic landmark. As the late management guru Peter Drucker noted, one of the four elemental activities of management is “organizing for the abandonment” of obsolete products and services. This is what the outdoor billboard industry should be doing.



For 10 compelling reasons for billboard control, read this link by a senior fellow at the Urban Land Institute, Edward T. McMahon updated for Planning Commissioners Journal this winter:

1. Billboards are a form of pollution – visual pollution
2. Billboards are out of place in most locations
3. Billboards destroy distinctiveness
4. Billboards are the only form of ads you can’t turn off or avoid
5. Billboard companies sell something they don’t own – our field of vision
6. Billboards are ineffective and unnecessary
7. Billboard companies exercise almost no restraint
8. Billboards are both a cause and a symptom of blight
9. Billboards are bad for business
10. Digital billboards use huge amounts of energy, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

But they do have one effective purpose – they fund election campaigns while targeting anyone in their way.

Any elected official tempted to go ideological in support of outdoor billboards though needs to know that a President signaled as a model for conservative leadership by the Heritage Foundation, Calvin Coolidge, seriously curbed outdoor billboards as governor of Massachusetts in the early 1900s and that was back when they were very small, folksy and rare.

I close by paraphrasing McMahon: Come see North Carolina before it is nothing more than a ride through the yellow pages; a windshield vista of 50-foot beer cans, towering casino signs and strip club teasers.

Ask your elected representatives to preserve North Carolina and defeat or veto this bill.

****

Letter: Natural Views
News & Observer, 12 March 2011

I am concerned that state Senate Bill 183 will be passed.

As a Raleigh citizen for 10 years, I have come to call this place home. N.C. State University is my alma mater, and now as a mid-20s resident I plan to raise my family here.

Raleigh is the City of Oaks and though some may not realize why they enjoy our Beltline drive, and other roads in the area, it is because of the wonderful job we have done so far of keeping billboards out of our view.

In 2011, we are dependent on computers for work, and many of us use television as a means to relax - enough advertising is already pushed upon us via those channels.

Please help us keep nature natural.

Jennifer Novelli
Raleigh

****

Editorial: Lawmakers have dim view of local control
Charlotte Observer, March 8, 2011

Two things are troubling about Onslow Republican Sen. Harry Brown's proposed Senate Bill 183, purporting to establish standards for "selective vegetation removal" and erection of outdoor advertising.

It does a few other selective things, too, such as allowing private interests to remove roadside trees and bushes that might impede the view, and undermining the ability of local governments to slow down the proliferation of electronic billboards.

It's another sign, if you'll pardon a bad pun, that the 2011 General Assembly takes a dim view of local decision-making by duly elected and appointed members of city councils. The legislature is moving toward reversing municipal annexations in Kinston and Lexington, an intrusive action that goes beyond preaching and gets into serious meddling. For a legislature controlled by Republicans for the first time in more than a century, many members show a remarkable affinity for a powerful central government rejecting orderly decision-making by local officials.

But it's not only Republicans who support bills making it easier to erect electronic billboards. A co-sponsor of the bill is Sen. Clark Jenkins, D-Edgecombe. And don't forget: It was then-Sen. and now Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton, a Democrat who presides over the Senate, who sponsored legislation several years ago limiting local governments longtime ability to ban billboards by requiring them to reimburse billboard owners if they did so and if they didn't already have billboard control ordinances. Previously, billboard owners were allowed a number of years to keep the signs up and earning before they had to be removed.

Opponents of the bill point out several troubling provisions. The bill would allow electronic billboards every 1,500 feet on each side of interstate and primary highways. It would allow billboard owners to convert existing signs to digital billboards that can convey more images. It would increase the zone in which billboard interests could cut vegetation from 250 feet to 400 feet. And it prohibits local governments from regulating the trimming of trees and plants on interstate or primary highway rights of way.

As we noted when the Federal Highway Administration began allowing electronic billboards that flash several messages a minute, safety experts have warned that it's unsafe for drivers to be distracted for more than two seconds at a time. Billboards with messages that can change every eight seconds or so will surely distract some drivers in adverse ways. It also seems at odds with the federal Highway Beautification Act, which discourages signs with flashing lights.

We knew the federal government's approval of changeable digital billboards meant they soon would proliferate in North Carolina. With Sen. Brown's bill allowing conversion of regular billboards, legislators should think twice about the messages they are sending. The one about highway safety is about to get run over.

****

Letter: Attractive Nuisances
News & Observer, March 2011

Thank you for the March 8 editorial on the disastrous billboard bill ("Roadside attractions"). Since we have no control about what is on the billboards, it's not the ads for the next truck stop that I worry about. It's those other things to help that truck driver "relax."

Patricia Carstensen
Durham

****

North Carolina News: Campaign cranks up to stop billboard blight
Independent Weekly, March 6, 2011

As one Democratic legislator said to me recently, another day, another outrage from the Republicans in control of the General Assembly. This time it's a bill — Senate Bill 183 — written for (and no doubt by) the billboard industry. The idea is to override local sign ordinances that, in Raleigh anyway (and Durham too), have stopped the proliferation of visual billboard blight.

SB-183's chief sponsor is Sen. Harry Brown, a Jacksonville Republican who is the Senate Majority Leader. In other words, this is not some inconsequential bill. (Among the co-sponsors: Sen. Clark Jenkins, D-Edgecombe, who's been the Democrats' top guy on highway bills for years.)

Some folks in Raleigh have set up a No on SB 183 website. City Councilor Thomas Crowder is also sounding the alarm in messages to his constituents.

(Update: Naturally, there is also a Facebook group... http://www.facebook.com/StopSB183)

From Crowder:

    I am greatly saddened to have learned today that a bill has been introduced in the NC Senate to allow billboards (including electronic digital billboards) in Raleigh again after decades of having some of the most beautiful urban highways and state maintained thoroughfares in the U.S. To make matters even worse the bill will allow the decimation of our tree lined beltline and other road buffers in order to display them.

    I ask for your immediate help by letting the NC Legislature understand that trampling over the quality of life rights of local citizens and municipalities for the sole benefit of the billboard industry is reaching way too far. I ask that you and your neighbors write the entire Wake County Delegation requesting they fight hard to kill this legislation on your behalf and write Governor Purdue asking her to VETO this bill, if it is in fact passed by the Legislature. Also, please write “Letters To The Editor” at the News and Observer letting the entire State Legislature know of your outrage in this bill and your adamant support for keeping our scenic view-sheds “green” and pristine. We do not want our roads and highways to emulate other states. Let’s Keep Raleigh and North Carolina Beautiful!

    Here are some highlights outlined by the North Carolina American Planning Association of what the bill will allow:

    1) Allow digital and tri-vision billboards every 1,500 feet on each side of any interstate or primary highway system route under certain conditions (such as that the copy stays fixed for at least 8 seconds).

    2) Allow by right conversion of any existing regular billboards to digital billboards, even if they are a locally nonconforming use.

    3) Increase cut zone distance from 250' to 400'.

    4) Override local tree cutting ordinances on state/federal roads.

    The bill would also provide some tree replanting money.

    To view the full bill language, visit
    http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/Senate/PDF/S183v0.pdf.

    Companion legislation in the House is expected shortly. Both pieces of legislation could move quickly.

    Please speak up now and loudly! Here are e-mail addresses for the Governor, Wake Delegation, and The News and Observer. Please ask your friends throughout the City, Triangle and State to do the same!

****

Letter: Billboards, again
Herald-Sun, 5 Mar 2011

I just read Ray Gronberg's report regarding N.C. Senate Bill 183, which would overrule Durham's ban in digital billboards. I hope others in our community are as angry about this as I am. I thought we had fought this battle. The will of the community was very clear: No digital billboards in Durham. It seems the outdoor advertising industry did not give up and have "persuaded" some members of the legislature that we don't know what's good for us.

Why would Harry Brown, a Republican lawmaker from Onslow County, introduce a bill which will overrule the clear will of our community. I thought Republicans abhor big government, yet here he is promoting it in the worst way. How can one reconcile this? Easy. It seems that Mr. Brown owns an automobile dealership in Jacksonville. No doubt such billboards will be good for his business. I guess Republicans like big business more than they abhor big government.

Robert Harrison
Durham

****

A RESOLUTION BY THE INTERNEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL OF DURHAM ON Local Government and Billboards and Roadside Vegetation and Billboards:

WHEREAS the citizens of every North Carolina city and county are best positioned to determine what is best for their own welfare, how their communities should appear, and how the use of land should be regulated; and

WHEREAS every city and county has each to its own satisfaction through the power long granted it by the laws of this state regulated the erection and display of on and off-premises signs; and

WHEREAS the bounty of North Carolina’s natural beauty is the heritage and birthright of every citizen and its proper stewardship is the responsibility of the people; and

WHEREAS the outdoor advertising industry may ask the North Carolina General Assembly to enact laws to restrict the power of cities and counties to determine for themselves which land use and zoning regulations best protect the welfare of local citizens and to take away from local communities the powers of self-government they have long enjoyed; and

WHEREAS the same industry may ask the General Assembly to enact laws to permit the cutting and removal of vegetation along state highways and byways to the detriment of the natural beauty of the state so that billboards should be seen where trees once stood;

IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED by the neighborhoods of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham through their delegates duly assembled that it shall be the position of the council that the General Assembly should enact no law restricting or diminishing the right or power of local governments to control land use through zoning and other ordinances including the power to control and even ban billboards and other signs.

IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED by the neighborhoods of the InterNeighborhood Council that its officers and such other persons as the president may appoint shall do every needful thing consistent with this resolution and the bylaws of the council to protect the prerogatives of local government to regulate land use including signs from enactments which would reduce or diminish them.

IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED by the neighborhoods of the InterNeighborhood Council that it shall be the position of the council that the General Assembly should enact no law permitting the removal of trees or other vegetation long the highways and byways of the state to improve the visibility of any advertising sign or display.

IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED by the neighborhoods of the InterNeighborhood Council that its officers and such other persons as the president may appoint shall do every needful thing consistent with this resolution and the bylaws of the council to protect the natural beauty of the state from destruction in favor of signs and other advertising.

This 22d day of February, 2011

THE INTERNEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL OF DURHAM

By TR Miller, President

****

Trees v. Billboards On NC Highways
Julie Rose, WFAE (Charlotte public radio), March 16, 2011   

North Carolina could be trading trees for billboards under a new proposal now being considered by state lawmakers.

Driving along a North Carolina highway can sometimes give the impression of a green tunnel, with tall trees on either side, and just a slice of blue above.

It's striking for visitors.

"People's first and last impression of a community is largely shaped by the views from our roadways," says Ben Hitchings, planning director for the town of Morrisville in Wake County.

Hitchings is also a member of the North Carolina chapter of the American Planning Association which - a long with a number of citizen and environmental groups - is mobilizing in opposition to Senate Bill 183. The measure gives billboard owners the right to cut down more trees and shrubs in front of their signs - up to 400 feet along the state-owned strip known as a "right of way."

"I see it as a pro-business bill and a fairness bill at the same time," says the bill's sponsor, Senator Harry Brown, a Republican car dealer from Jacksonville. "The billboard companies get permits to build these signs and have those investments and then as vegetation grows, it can grow in front of their signs where they're just unusable."

Billboard companies would still need a permit from the state to cut down vegetation, but they would no longer need the permission of local governments that have stricter billboard and tree ordinances. That's not a position the transportation department wants to be in, says spokeswoman Greer Beatty.

"People in the community - we believe strongly - should have the right to determine how they want their community to grow and how they want their community to look and feel," says Beatty. "We don't believe it's our place to intercede in that."

Despite that concern, Beatty says the department is not actively opposing Senate Bill 183.

Another controversial clause in the measure would allow electronic billboards every 1,500 feet on all state and federal highways - regardless of city and county rules that may prohibit such signs. Charlotte approved digital billboards in 2007, but many communities still ban them for fear they distract drivers.

****

Senate bill could stop Raleigh’s billboard ban
Raleigh Public Record,  Mar 10, 2011

Highways and interstates in Raleigh could look very different if a bill in the state Senate becomes law.

S.B. 183 would nullify ordinances in Raleigh and other communities that ban billboards on thoroughfares and local sections of interstate highways.

Under the bill, automatic changeable facing signs – billboards with panels or slats that move to allow a new advertisement to display – would be legal on “any interstate or primary highway system route” within the state, even if such structures are already illegal in local jurisdictions. The bill would also give billboard owners greater leeway in removing vegetation so their structures could be seen more easily.

The bill is sponsored by State Senate Majority Leader Harry Brown (R-6), who calls it “pro-business.”

“The billboard industry has been stymied for a while,” he said.

In particular, Brown feels that regulations on vegetation removal hamper these companies unnecessarily.

“To ask a business to invest millions of dollars in signs, then pass an ordinance to make the sign worthless, is not fair,” he said.

A billboard on Capital Boulevard.

Local officials have expressed objections. City Councilman Thomas Crowder (District D) has begun a grassroots campaign to block passage of the legislation.

In an e-mail to his supporters, Crowder urged residents to contact legislators and Gov. Bev Purdue to prevent “trampling over the quality-of-life rights of local citizens and municipalities for the sole benefit of the billboard industry.”

Opponents of the bill pitch the issue as a battle for beauty, state character, and local power.

“NCAPA believes people come to North Carolina to see its natural beauty, not billboards,” Hitchings said. “The view from roadways is what affects people’s perceptions of a place. This is not helpful from the perspective of promoting statewide tourism.”

“This legislation would override the ability of communities to make their own choices about the appearance of the community,” said Ben Hitchings, planning director for the town of Morrisville and former legislative chair of the North Carolina Chapter of the American Planning Association.

“Who gets to decide whether there are billboards in a community, residents or the billboard industry?” Hitchings said. “This is finally about local control, who gets to make the decisions.”

The NCAPA is part of a coalition of at least six other advocacy groups that opposes S.B. 183.

Only one state senator from Wake County, Josh Stein (D-16), returned The Record’s phone calls seeking perspectives on the bill.

“I haven’t read it yet, so I don’t know all the details,” Stein said. “But I’m concerned about any legislation that takes away local control to preserve natural beauty. Any legislation that would increase the amount of trees cut would give me pause.”

“Boom, There’s a Sign”

The bill provides no review process for erecting new moveable billboards. That means billboards may go up without any community or government input, as long as billboard owners meet certain criteria: Billboards must stand at least 1,500 feet from each other, maintain a fixed message for at least eight seconds, and cannot display “flashing, intermittent, or moving lights, including animated or scrolling advertising.”

“[Billboard owners] can just do it,” said Mitchell Silver, planning director for the city of Raleigh. “They are entitled to do it, and you the public wouldn’t know. There would be no heads-up. Boom, there’s a sign.”

Brown struck a conciliatory note on the issue of local control, stating that he is willing to compromise as the bill goes through committee.

“There needs to be a give and take on this issue,” he said. “I don’t want to override particular ordinances in particular towns.”

Cutting down trees

The provision regarding vegetation removal perhaps has evoked the most ire in the bill’s opponents.

Sign owners can remove vegetation, including trees, up to 250 feet from the road. S.B. 183 would increase the cut zone to 400 feet.

In his e-mail, Crowder called this “the decimation of our tree-lined Beltline.”

“We do not want our roads and highways to emulate other states’,” he added.

Opponents deny that such altering of the landscape would benefit the state’s businesses.

“NCAPA believes people come to North Carolina to see its natural beauty, not billboards,” Hitchings said. “The view from roadways is what affects people’s perceptions of a place. This is not helpful from the perspective of promoting statewide tourism.”

Brown minimizes the impact of enlarging the cut zone.

“The bill says that if they remove vegetation, they would replace it with other vegetation,” he said. “Now, it would be smaller vegetation, but it would probably even improve the appearance of our roads.”

The senator also pointed out the benefits the billboard industry provides to the community.

“Most people don’t understand that the billboard companies give — I’ve heard as much as $5 million gratis — to charity, to nonprofits to advertise their causes,” he said.

How would Raleigh be affected?

For 40 years, Raleigh has banned billboards in all areas of the city not zoned for industrial use. A few billboards in place before the ban were allowed to remain.

S.B. 183 would allow billboard owners to convert all current billboards to electronic, changeable billboards. Less clear is whether the bill would allow companies to put up new electronic billboards in areas where all billboards are banned.

A map of roads likely affected by S.B. 183. Click to view larger image.

The term “primary highway system route” has officials looking to the North Carolina Department of Transportation for clarification. Hitchings of the NCAPA is seeking a comprehensive list of all roads that would be affected.

He said so far, he has determined that roads inside the Raleigh Beltline are not affected by the billboard legislation. The Beltline and other interstate highways fall under the bill’s purview.

Traffic hazards?

The bill’s opponents have also raised questions about the safety of changeable billboards.

The NCDOT, which would issue permits and collect fees for new billboards, is conducting a study to determine whether changeable billboards result in driver distraction.

Stein and the bill’s opponents eagerly await the outcome of the study.

“As far as this increasing traffic accidents, I don’t buy that at all,” Brown said.

It is unclear what role municipalities would play with NCDOT in enforcing billboard rules.

****