What Durham residents think about electronic billboards...Op-Eds from the local papers |
|
|
Editorial: United in opposition
Electronic billboards are a clear -- a flashing, blinking, obvious -- step forward when it comes to the bottom line of advertising: attracting eyes. But, after more than a year of discussion, it appears that Durham would be taking a giant tumble backward if the city or county overturns a 1980s billboard ban that cost $1 million to defend in court. Fairway Outdoor Advertising owns 47 billboards in Durham. The Georgia-based company has asked for permission to replace a quarter of them with electronic displays. Opponents characterize this as 11 or 12 pulsating beacons advertising cigarette wholesalers, fast food and DUI attorneys. Last year, we stood cautiously in favor of Fairway's proposal. Thanks to Durham's existing rules, the billboards that stand in the county are aging and will not be replaced. It's a toss-up when it comes to the aesthetic value: Is it better to let billboards decay, or to allow an update that would set the city up for another 40 or more years of roadside advertising? Some of the early scuttlebutt made it seem as the change came with strong inducements for the city and county, but those inducements aren't strong enough to overcome the surge of public sentiment in opposition to the digital displays. The boards' property tax -- estimated at $60,000 per year -- is lower than we hoped. Despite the fact that the electronic billboards can change screens and serve multiple advertisers, the company has not indicated that it will tear down any of its other aging billboards. The city and county planning staffs, which are responsible for the rules that govern which kinds of signs, buildings and businesses can find a home in Durham, have also offered a firm opinion: No billboards. No thanks. The staff's decision rests in part on the 1980s ban, which grandfathered in 94 existing billboards but barred any new ones, and on the city's strict limits on digital displays. Opening the door to electronic billboards would create a gap for other businesses to exploit. Their recommendation will be formally presented to the Durham Planning Commission tonight. It should be a hot meeting, with billboard opponents lined up to speak during the public comment period. The coalition spans the city, including advocates from Old West Durham to North East Central Durham. Both staff and citizens have a lot to say about why billboards are ill-advised, and they go so far as to say that they are a dangerous distraction to passing motorists (although we'd like to see the accident and fatality statistics before we back that assertion). But it boils down to this: Durham doesn't want those billboards, they don't significantly add to the tax base, and changing our rules could having us spend years and millions of dollars in court. The Planning Commission can put off a decision about the billboards for up to three months, but we hope they will move swiftly and decisively against any change to the ordinance, and we hope both the Durham City Council and Durham County Board of Commissioners will follow suit. Letter: Kudos to billboard cartoons in newspaper
Kudos to Dennis Draughon for his wonderful cartoons on the billboard industry's two-year effort to put up electronic billboards in Durham. His first cartoon shows a smooth-talking billboard lobbyist saying nice things - but Durham residents know it's really all about industry making more money by sticking those bright, blinking billboards in our community. Draughon's latest cartoon shows the Planning Commission chopping down the billboard with an ax (after their strong 12-0 vote against industry's measure). At the hearing, industry lawyers tried to argue that Durham should have electronic billboards since other North Carolina cities have them. Yes, we've seen them. That's why more than 500 Durham residents wrote officials to support our successful billboard ban (while only three wrote for digital billboards). The recent independent Durham Convention and Visitors Bureau poll shows 9-to-1 support for Durham's current billboard ban. We don't think industry should be allowed to make its non-conforming billboards permanent fixtures on our roadways. USA Today reports, "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. Many cities are fighting to get what Durham already has: a billboard ban. Industry insists that electronic billboards, flashing 10,000 ads a day, are not distractions for drivers. If that's really true, then why are they spending so much money on lawyers and lobbyists to get them? Facing unified opposition, some industry supporters are now suggesting a "compromise." Anyone calling for a compromise is really saying: "let's gut Durham's sign ordinance and allow big, bright digital billboards blinking ads all day and all night." That's hardly a compromise. That's exactly what industry wants. We don't need to open that can or worms. Nor do we need to open ourselves to litigation if the sign ordinance is changed. There's a clear choice on this issue: our elected officials can either stand with the citizens of Durham - or stand on the side of an out-of-state billboard company and its well-paid lobbyists. If officials stand with the community, we can look forward to Draughon's next cartoon: a billboard stump and industry lobbyists driving out of Durham - down a tree-lined I-85, with no billboards in sight. John Schelp
Column: City must keep ban on billboards
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. To see video clips of electronic billboards, and letters of support from folks in the Durham community, visit supportdurhambillboardban.com. Industry insists that electronic billboards are not distractions for drivers. If that's really true, why are they spending so much money on lawyers and lobbyists to get them? Column: new website supports Durham's current ban on e-billboards 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://SupportDurhamBillboardBan.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)...
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 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. | |