[Durham INC] --> Opposition to electronic billboards grows across North Carolina

[John Schelp]

Short Stack: Signs of trouble
Greensboro News & Record, March 28, 2011

No doubt, life would be easier for the N.C. Outdoor Advertising Association if the state set the rules on where its members can place signs and what they look like.

Last week, industry officials asked legislators to let them place electronic displays along major highways and expand tree-cutting in front of their billboards, even if it means overruling local ordinances.

That would be a mistake.

Local communities should decide on locations, content and land-clearing because standards often vary. What works in one place may not in another.

Fortunately, most senators hearing the request took a dim view of what amounts to state government overstepping its authority.

==

Darts and Laurels
Salisbury Post, March 26, 2011

Dart to a billboard-industry backed proposal that would weaken local communities’ rights to regulate digital signage along major highways. The bill, currently in the state Senate’s Transportation Committee, would let advertisers promote their wares on changing electronic displays along thoroughfares even if it means overruling local sign ordinances that prevent the digital displays. The proposal also would allow expanded tree-cutting in front of billboards. The North Carolina Outdoor Advertising Association argues the change would spur job growth. But you have to wonder: Won’t changing to digital billboards doom the jobs of the workers who now go out and manually change the messages on conventional billboards? Of course, given how flashing signs can distract drivers, it might increase the demand for auto repair workers.

==

Letter: Distracting stimuli
News & Observer, March 26, 2011

We are going through a period of increased automotive accidents caused by inattention to driving while using cell phones, especially their "texting" capability.

Now supporters of relaxing the curbs on billboards advocate the use of digital billboards, which could change their messages every eight seconds. They want to allow up to seven such devices per mile on interstate highways and federally assisted roads.

Objects like this that will distract a driver from the road ahead are not only contaminating the landscape, but also are dangerous. May our legislators please defeat the bill sponsoring this change.

John Shillito, M.D.
Neurosurgeon, retired
Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Emeritus
Chapel Hill

==

Letter: Billboards
Herald-Sun, March 28, 2011

Shame on Fairway Advertising and the billboard industry.

Faced with widespread public opposition to electronic billboards in communities, they want to undermine local control by changing state law. Their proposal takes control of billboard regulation from local communities and empowers the billboard industry to clearcut along our highways to erect their digital billboards -- whether we want them or not. We do not want them.

Billboards, especially digital ones, are sources of visual and virtual pollution with large carbon footprint. They distract drivers and endanger public safety. They add almost no jobs or tax revenues to local economies. Finally, digital billboards are the technology of the past century -- blaring blanket messages to a public that does not rely on them for information. Advertising is being transformed by electronic media and niche marketing.

Today people depend on tablet computers and smart phones for event and entertainment schedules, directions, and information about businesses, nonprofits and government services. I hope our legislators recognize electronic billboards as the last dying breath of a dinosaur industry. I urge state legislators to protect the rights of local communities to determine zoning and appearance standards for ourselves and to defend our interests and rights over those of the billboard industry.

Kelly Jarrett
Durham

==

Under the Dome: Who decides on billboards?
News & Observer, March 30, 2011

State Sen. Harry Brown of Jacksonville is the main sponsor of a bill sought by the outdoor advertising industry that would ease restrictions on billboards and make state law trump any local ordinances that govern them. That's not a very popular idea with at least one official in his hometown.

"I don't like any proposal that removes from local government the right to regulate land use standards within their jurisdiction," Jacksonville City Manager Richard Woodruff said.

The N.C. League of Municipalities, Association of County Commissioners and many other local officials oppose Brown's bill, in large part because it would override local regulations such as Jacksonville's zoning ordinance, Durham's billboard ban and Charlotte's tree ordinance.

Jacksonville's ordinance, for example, says "because of their sheer size, proximity to buildings and potential to storm damage, these signs can be aesthetically undesirable, create traffic hazards and present dangers to adjoining properties."

The bill, now in the Senate Transportation Committee, also would allow advertisers to replace existing signs with digital ones and increase the area from which trees and other shrubs could be cleared around the signs.

Woodruff, a former planner, says the measure also "would create a system of regulatory ripples that could substantially affect the look and feel of your community."

==

Chapel Hill fighting billboard bill
By Aaron Keck, WCHL

Officials in Chapel Hill are fighting back against a bill in the General Assembly that could greatly expand the number of billboards we see on Orange County’s highways and roads.

Currently, state law allows counties and municipalities to set their own restrictions on billboards. But Senate Bill 183 would override those local ordinances and return jurisdiction to the state.

State Senator Floyd McKissick of Durham sits on the Transportation Committee, which is currently reviewing the bill. He says Chapel Hill may have placed some severe restrictions on signage and billboards—but that ought to be Chapel Hill’s decision, not the state’s.

"Certainly Chapel Hill has had some of the most restrictive sign ordinances and regulations in the state," he says. "But in the past, we've allowed jurisdictions in our state to exercise control...and I think we should continue with that approach."

Orange County currently requires billboards to be at least 1,000 feet apart, and the county hasn’t approved any new billboards in more than a decade.  Senate Bill 183, by contrast, would allow billboards to be spaced as little as 300 feet apart on certain roads, and 100 feet apart within town limits. Drivers on I-40 could pass a new one every few seconds.

And while ostensibly the bill is meant to help businesses advertise more effectively, Senator McKissick says the real beneficiary will be someone else.

"I would think the one primarily benefiting is the business that owns the billboard," he says.

The Chapel Hill Town Council and the County Board of Commissioners have little say in whether the bill passes. But Chapel Hill Town Manager Roger Stancil is recommending measures this week that could mitigate its effects, including a proposal to ban electronic billboards within town limits.

Senator McKissick says he’s all for anything that allows the state to preserve its locally-oriented character.

"North Carolina is a wonderful state in that we do have these local community norms," he says. "Each community (has) its own unique character as a result...so I would hope that we would continue this norm and tradition."

In the meantime, Senate Bill 183 still has a few hurdles to overcome: it has to clear the Transportation Committee before proceeding to the Senate for a full vote.

==

Letter: Billboards' job boost
News & Observer, March 26, 2011

The legislation for digital billboards is being promoted as a "jobs bill." No question about that, but the jobs will be taxpayer-supported jobs as more first responders are going to have to be hired to treat accident victims who take their eyes off the road to read the up-to-seven flashing digital billboards per each mile. And, they will be easy to read as there won't be any nasty trees getting in the way.

Our automobile and medical insurance rates will increase, especially our medical insurance. We will be paying for all of those folks who don't want health insurance because the Republican legislature thinks it's an imposition on us. We won't need to have laws banning cellphone texting while driving in North Carolina because we will have flashy billboards. On the other hand, the seven flashy billboards per mile will distract drivers from looking at all of the litter and roadside trash scattered along our highways.

Leon DeBaer,
Knightdale

==

Letter: Help Wanted?
News & Observer, March 26, 2011

Whenever I drive to High Point, I cannot take my eyes off of the hideous flashing billboard at the I-40 and I-85 split. That is exactly what Tony Adams of the N.C. Outdoor Advertising Association wants to hear ("Bill starts fight over billboards," March 23 news article). What scares me is he is using exactly what people want to hear to get his way: "This fosters jobs."

Really, I would love to see how a flashing billboard fosters jobs. Please provide some data to back that up. Local governments should continue to have the power to decide whether they want the flashing billboards.

Kelly Mann,
Raleigh

==

Letter: Trains & billboards
News & Observer, March 27, 2011

Regarding "GOP bill would halt fast rail" (March 23 front-page article), let's see if I have this straight:

Adding a second parallel track to allow trains to pass each other would degrade service and reduce capacity? Projections that the rail system would pay for itself would increase the likelihood that the taxpayers would wind up paying increased operating expenses? Adding an estimated 4,800 jobs is not as worthwhile as adding a smaller number of jobs cutting down trees for billboard companies? What am I missing?

Gene Presson,
Raleigh

==

Billboard cartoon in Charlotte Observer and News & Observer... http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/03/24/2169335/nc-billboard.html

==

Letter: A road hazard
Herald-Sun, March 27, 2011

Regarding the bill introduced in the state senate that would overturn Durham's decision to disallow digital billboards, the state should leave these local issues alone and should not be promoting the use of digital billboards. I am convinced that they are a safety hazard.

On a recent journey down I-85 South through Atlanta, I observed many of these monstrosities. They are the brightest objects along the roadway.

I noticed that the frequent, instantaneous changes of these displays elicited an involuntary glance from me, even when I was deliberately focusing on the road ahead and the surrounding traffic.

While not strictly "animation," the instant change acts the same way to distract our attention. We humans are very sensitive to sudden, unusual changes in our visual field. In this case, however, the distraction can be hazardous.

My drive through Atlanta was at night in rain and fog. I was following a bend in the road to the left when, suddenly, one of these gadgets straight ahead changed from some subdued color to a brilliant white. The rain and fog amplified the change, as though someone had turned on a bank of floodlights! Of course, my attention immediately went to the source of the bright light, and the car swerved a little.

I did not lose control of my vehicle, but it was quite a while before my breathing and heart rate returned to normal. My anger, however, towards an industry that would put such a device in that location, endangering my life for the purpose of advertising (what?), has yet to subside.

Arland Eyl
Durham

==

Column: Putting a price on the landscape
By Reyn Bowman, Herald-Sun, March 27, 2011

A Mecklenburg lawmaker and co-sponsor of a bill that will unleash a torrent of digital billboards on North Carolina is quoted as seeing it as a property-rights issue, comparing swathing trees in front of outdoor billboards to cutting the grass in front of your house.

Even if there weren't many reasons why his bill is disastrous for North Carolina, he's focused on the wrong property rights. While the billboard companies buy, rent or lease tiny pieces of property on which to plant poles and hang huge, blinking digital billboards, they are ripping off millions of other property owners without paying a dime:

* For the proven economic value of the "green" infrastructure they destroy.

* For the scenic tourism they destroy.

* For the unique-sense-of-place which draw residents and visitors to our cities and towns.

* For the blight they reveal and to which they contribute along roadsides by swathing trees from the public's right-of-way in many areas and blocking out view-shed in others.

* For the clutter they create that can provide a screen for criminal behavior as noted in the "broken-windows theory" and crime prevention through environmental design.

These public property rights are priceless and far beyond any value an outdoor billboard can provide in return, even if these companies were actually required to pay for use of the property they mask and destroy.

North Carolina's tree canopy is one of its most distinctive attributes and less than half remains. The trees are economic infrastructure because they clean the air and water and serve as the backdrop for the state's $17 billion tourism sector. It is time we started valuing trees and learning from states that are lopping off entire mountain tops, as nearly 500 have been to date, typically taking less than a day. The return is a measly 6 percent of the coal deposit there.

If legislators want to put North Carolina's scenic beauty and tree canopy up for sale and turn the state into a drive-through yellow pages, at least they should practice good business and charge what they are worth in return -- priceless.

North Carolinians deserve full value!

-> Reyn Bowman is emeritus president of the Durham Convention and Visitors Bureau. This column first appeared on his blog, Bull City Mutterings.

==

"This isn't about moderation, it's about wretched excess."

Editorial: First in blight?
The billboard industry is pushing hard for a law that would spawn flashing signs all over North Carolina (News & Observer, March 25, 2011)

There is nothing surprising about it. And that's the only "positive" thing to say about a proposal the billboard industry is pushing in the General Assembly.

Basically, the industry wants a state law that would in effect gut local ordinances (such as one in Durham) that attempt to limit billboards so that owners might bring in digital billboards that would change every eight seconds, flashing different messages from different advertisers. And, the industry would like to nearly double the space around the signs that could be cleared of trees.

The industry for years has sought to weaken regulation, and has sometimes ignored what regulation there was. The bill to allow up to seven electronic billboards per mile comes from Republican Sen. Harry Brown of Onslow County. Lobbyists for the industry tout this as a jobs creator. If the billboards are allowed to sprout, says Tony Adams of the N.C. Outdoor Advertising Association, businesses will do better and have more jobs.

That's a conclusion based on self-interested speculation, tailored to a Republican majority in the General Assembly that has come to power pledging to be more business-friendly. But surely GOP members are not as naïve as the industry thinks they are. (The billboarders also are supporting politicians with some flashing signs that matter, those of dead presidents. Bob Hall of political watchdog group Democracy North Carolina, says executives with major billboard companies have given over $150,000 to politicians and political committees in the last five years.)

Raleigh City Attorney Tom McCormick sums up some reasons for opposition: "You don't need to have these things all over the place. They're traffic hazards that distract motorists. And they're unattractive to your city." The Triangle area in particular has done well to limit the number of billboards. How many folks around here have had visitors from other states comment on our highways' scenic appeal? Many. Instead of billboards along I-40, for example, people mainly see trees.

This isn't to say that there's no place suitable for outdoor advertising. But any industry whose products are in public view, all the time, and are stationed by public roadsides needs regulating.

Instead, the industry wants to cut more trees to make its signs more visible. (Doggone trees.) And by installing flashing signs, billboard owners will multiply the amount of money they can make from one location.

This is a curious twist on the "small government" philosophy of the Republicans now in power. They're always talking about how government infringes on everything. And yet they're considering legislation that would bring down the heavy hand of (state) government on towns and cities, effectively wiping out the attempts of councils and town boards to address issues that are pertinent to their communities.

This is a rotten tomato of special interest legislating tossed by an industry that just won't give up. No one is trying, or should try, to put billboards out of business. In the right places, yes, they can be helpful to motorists and to business. Like most things, they're not offensive or harmful in moderation.

But this isn't about moderation, it's about wretched excess. Lawmakers should dismiss the proposition quicker than one of those eight-second signs.

==

Letter: Litter on and along roads a huge public safety issue
Asheville Citizen-Times, March 22, 2011

I, like many others, am sick of our litter situation. In the past several weeks, I've been behind two waste trucks literally spewing garbage all over Interstate 26. Is there a sane explanation as to why these trucks aren't required to cover their loads?

This isn't just a litter problem but a huge public safety issue that has to be addressed. Speaking about trash, the powerful billboard lobby is currently greasing the palms of our politicians to pass an egregious bill. Senate Bill 183 would allow for a billboard (including electronic billboards) every 1,500 feet along any interstate or primary highway in every county in North Carolina. This bill would also allow the conversion of any existing billboards to digital billboards. The clear cutting of right of ways would increase from 250-400 feet. Just what we need — more trash along our interstates. Please express your outrage by writing your local representatives and Gov. Bev Perdue.

Maggie O'Neal
Weaverville

==

"As for this dash toward electrified billboards, a U-turn would be best."

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)...

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: Flashing video billboards would be terrible distraction
Asheville Citizen-Times, March 18, 2011

Who are these state legislators who are proposing more flashing video billboards? Don't we have enough things distracting drivers now — cell phones, GPS devices, food, etc.? All are distracting drivers.

In my opinion, the AC-T should find out if anyone is paying our elected officials for this bill. It is really a stupid idea. Someone could easily have a wreck driving while distracted by a flashing billboard. These legislators need to be removed from office.

Leo C. McLeod
Weaverville

==

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

==

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

==

Letter: Natural Views
News & Observer, March 12, 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

==

Letter: Billboards, again
Herald-Sun, March 5, 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

==

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

==

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: 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.

==

Online post to newspapers across North Carolina...

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

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.

The billboard industry insists their study (which they funded) says bright, blinking billboards don't distract drivers; don't draw your eyes off the road. And yet, the industry publication, Advertising Age, boasts: "Outdoor is not an on-demand medium. You can’t choose to see it, you have to see it."

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, road crews who now change billboard signs would likely lose their jobs.

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.

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, seven per mile, 50 feet in the sky over your communities.

Industry wants to double the area of trees they can cut down in the right-of-way. They want to make sure no one misses their blinking signs while driving 70 MPH down the highway. North Carolina's trees contribute to the state's economy. Not only do they clean our air and water, they serve as the backdrop for NC’s $17 billion tourism sector.

Once the billboard industry opens the door, and gets all their digital billboards up, the door can't be closed. We don't need big, bright billboards blinking thousands of ads a day -- across our state.

More info (Scenic America): www.scenic.org/billboards

~John Schelp

==