What Durham residents think about electronic billboards...

Expressions of support from individuals and community groups

Durham Residents Support Existing Billboard Ordinance

Source: Durham Convention and Visitors Bureau News Service (email dated October 2, 2009)

A scientific public opinion poll was conducted by NanoPhrades to inform any future position the DCVB Tourism Development Authority might take should a proposal be made to modify the existing Durham ordinance prohibiting additional billboards in Durham or upgrading existing billboards.

Click for larger image. Source DCVB.

Support for the existing ordinance was consistent across gender with males and females, 72.4% and 71.4%, in favor respectively. Newcomers (2 years or less) supported the ordinance by a ratio of 4.5 to 1 while those here 3-5 years were 9 to 1 in favor, and those here 6 to 10 years in favor by 20 to 1.

Residents of 11-20 years supported the ordinance by 14 to 1 and those living in Durham more than 21 years showed support by a margin of 8 to 1. Caucasians supported the existing ordinance by 10 to 1, African Americans by 11 to 1, Asians by 4 to 1, and Hispanics by 5.5 to 1.

Residents supported the existing ordinance regardless of their level of pride in or image of Durham. Even those undecided about either supported the existing ordinance.

The poll was taken in August subsequent to several months of discussion in the community and neighborhood groups, as well as reports in the news of a possible proposal to change the ordinance to permit moving some billboards and upgrading them to digital.

Eno River Association
4404 Guess Rd, Durham, NC

April 9, 2010

Dear members of Durham County Commission and Durham City Council:

I am writing you as the current President of the Eno River Association. We have worked for over 40 years to conserve the natural environment of the Eno River Basin in Durham and Orange counties.

Our Board has instructed me to convey our opposition to any changes in Durham 's current billboard law. I know you are under a lot of pressure from the Billboard Industry to allow electronic billboards, but i hope you will resist this pressure and retain the current law, which has been very effective to reduce the number of billboards on our highways.

I was in Atlanta last Thanksgiving, and I can attest to the digital billboards being an enormous distraction to the driving public. We entered the center of Atlanta to be greeted by an enormous digital George Lopez, who seemed to be as bright as the sun!

To deny that these electronic billboards will not cause traffic problems and distract drivers is just not exercising common sense!

Should Durham's current billboard ordinance be changed, it would be extremely difficult and costly to remove these electronic billboards in the future. If local officials ever wanted to remove an electronic billboard for any reason, Durham taxpayers would have to compensate billboard companies for all future lost revenues. Our current limit on billboards involved a mid-1990s lengthy court battle at taxpayers' great expense.

Changing the protections of our current billboard ordinance will leave Durham exposed to this possible litigation. Please do not tinker with our successful sign ordinance.

In a Durham Convention & Visitor's Bureau poll, support for Durham 's existing billboard ordinance was nearly 9 to 1 overall (see results at supportdurhambillboardban.com). The environmental and safety costs will outweigh any possible benefits. The assertion that these will be for public service announcements is a "red herring" - the public announcements are handled by the DOT electronic signs. The only ones who will gain from this are the out-of-state billboard corporations.

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

Sincerely,

Milo Pyne
President, Eno River Association

Support ban on electronic billboards (via email, 8/21/09)

I adamantly support the ban on electronic billboards in Durham or anywhere as they are dangerous to all people who should have their eyes on the road. They are especially to those who have some form of night blindness. There is enough advertising everywhere. Billboard serve no purpose in a day when internet advertising is where people get most of their information. There is absolutely no reason to endanger people's lives putting more in the sight of people who are supposed to be concentrating on driving vehicles which pose a danger to lives if not operated properly.

Kris
Durham, NC

No billboards in Durham (via email, 7/16/09)

My wife and I lived in Greensboro for 2 years before moving to Durham 7 years ago. Just as curb appeal is an important factor in selling a house, the appearance of a city helps "sell" it to prospective residents, tourists, and businesses. We feel that the ubiquitous billboard advertisements in Greensboro makes the city look run-down (regardless of the age or maintenance of the billboards) and unsophisticated. By contrast, the areas of Durham without billboards look friendlier and more of what we would consider a hometown environment. Whether it is a traditional billboard, or a modern billboard with high resolution display technology, the "in your face" nature of such advertising spoils the landscape and brings an impersonal, commercialized entity to the city that we find very unappealing. We fully support the billboard ban in Durham, do not favor the introduction of digital billboards, and would prefer that all "grandfathered" traditional billboards be removed.

Sincerely,

Allan and Cathy
Durham residents since 2001

No To Electronic Billboards (via email, 6/11/09)

I have recently spent a lot of time in Durham. Currently residing in Raleigh NC I have really grown quite fond of Durham, and hope to call it home one day. I will admit, living in Raleigh for almost 10 years prior, all I knew about Durham was that it was considered a dangerous place to live. I would hear people talk about living in Durham and somewhat cringe inside. However, after leaving Raleigh for a year to live in Charlotte, a city for which I fell in love with almost instantly, coming back and seeing Raleigh through different eyes, I really hoped to find what I found so loveable about Charlotte in Raleigh, but I could not despite my efforts. However, I was introduced to Durham, even though I had been to some baseball games over the years, I really never spent much time in Durham. It was what I was looking for, what I had found in Charlotte. The city is alive, there is a community, a sense of caring and charity, the arts, the creativity and large concern in the community is rampant, alive, and beautiful. In a city of such creativity surely there must be a better way, a more creative way to market our local business's. Billboards fill our beautiful cities with ads and sights we would rather not see, and we should really question their effectiveness. I for one do not think I have ever purchased an item because I saw it advertised on a billboard. In a day and age where it is not un-common to see multi-million dollar law suits for email spam, something that takes moments to delete and is forever gone from our memory, raises such a fuss. However, we continue to construct large billboards in the midst of our beautiful cities creating a permanent blemish on our skylines. Am I the only one to find this a bit odd? I sincerely hope we keep this form of advertisement to a bare minimum and continue to evolve Durham into a more beautiful community, one heart at a time.

Sincerely,

Spencer

Support for Ban on Electronic Billboards (via email, 5/18/09)

I completely support your position on banning electronic billboards. If you decide to attempt to rid Durham of all billboards, I would support that as well. Perhaps a movement to ban all billboards might allow a compromise position of no electronic billboards. Thank you for your efforts on this measure.

Ellen
Durham, NC

billboards (via email, 5/16/09)

I am strongly opposed to electronic billboards. They were foisted on me while I was traveling to Philadelphia and I dislike them very much. My dislike stems from a safety issue also. Drivers should not be distracted by large and demanding billboards. "Old Style" billboards were not "in your face" like these are.

Linda
Durham, NC

no electronic billboards! (via email, 4/29/09)

I do not live in Durham, but I work there and patronize Durham restaurants and stores. I do this without relying on billboards to tell me where to shop. I strongly oppose any changes to Durham's current billboard ordinance, which protects citizens from visual clutter and light pollution. Durham is a MUCH more attractive city due to the limtiation on billboards. If you're not convinced, just go to Burlington and you'll get a good idea of how ugly a city can be due to a proliferation of billboards. Thank goodness that there are folks in Durham who are interested in protecting natural resources and protecting drivers and consumers from a constant bombardment of commercialism!

Sincerely,

KT
Mebane, NC

Digital Billboard Safety Report (via email, 4/29/09)

Hello Scenic Advocates in Durham:

I hope you are successful in your advocacy to keep the ban on digital signage...

Mary Tracy
Executive Director
Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight

Philadelphia, PA

A few quick thoughts on a 1750 mile trip (4/22/09)

Durham - Don't loosen your billboard restrictions. I hear Memphis is a beautiful city, but you'd never know it from the freeway. And those animated video billboards that our friends at Fairway want to bring to town? Hell, one of the billboards i passed was showing full motion video of dog racing in an ad for a greyhound track. Try keeping your eyes off that while your driving. (source: Barry Ragin's blog)

Durham billboards (via email, 4/22/09)

Billboards are just plain ugly. They downgrade neighborhoods and are a distraction on highways. Let's keep "scenic" in "Scenic America."

MK
Chapel Hill, NC

keep the ban on electronic billboards (via email, 3/25/09)

Please keep the ban on electronic billboards in place. I do not want to look at these hideous advertisements in our neighborhoods. People need to stop always thinking about buying things and money, and start questioning what really improves my quality of life.

JB
Durham

billboards (via email, 3/25/09)

I happen to live in Falconbridge and think more billboards in the area around here, or anywhere in the Durham/Chapel Hill area for that matter, is a tremendously bad idea. It's just another sad example of a few people wanting to "make a buck" at the expense of everyone else and not really caring if it puts their safety in jeapordy.

Frankly, there are already too many people on the roads with a cell phone in their ear paying too little attention to their driving. Add in a flashing billboard and some of them become nothing short of a pure menace to those of us already driving defensively.

How can I help you stop this special interest, self-serving stupidity?

WR
Durham

Durham Inter-Neighborhood Council voted overwhelmingly on March 24, 2009 to adopt the following resolution, endorsing Durham's existing billboard policy.

At the same meeting, INC also voted overwhelmingly to reject a resolution that would have allowed modifications to the current billboard policy.

This video documents both the discussion and the actions taken by INC.

A RESOLUTION BY
THE INTER-NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL OF DURHAM

WHEREAS the billboard industry through Fairway, its principal actor in the Durham area, has proposed that the ordinances of the City and County of Durham be amended to allow some billboards to be upgraded in their materials, some billboards to be upgraded to digital display, and some billboards to be relocated; and

WHEREAS billboards contribute to urban blight and decline, are burdensome to nearby neighborhoods, and are inimical to purposes of good planning and urban design; and

WHEREAS the billboard industry contributes little to city and county revenues or to the economic welfare of the Durham community; and

WHEREAS the City and County of Durham, to combat decline, promote the attractiveness of the community, and to protect neighborhoods, effectively banned new billboards in the middle 1980s and made those in existence at that time nonconforming uses; and

WHEREAS the city and county, through that same ban and thoughtful enforcement measures caused many billboards to be removed by lawful means; and

WHEREAS the ban survives in the provisions of the Durham Unified Development Ordinance subject to controlling federal and state laws and rules; and

WHEREAS the ban continues to serve its original purposes of beautifying the Durham community, promoting the economic renewal of the city and county, and protecting neighborhoods; and

WHEREAS the attrition of billboards in Durham as a result of the ban exceeds the national average; and

WHEREAS any change to Durham’s ordinances which would allow billboards to be upgraded in their materials, upgraded to digital display, or relocated would end the ban, arrest attrition, and effectively make billboards in the Durham community permanent;

IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED by the InterNeighborhood Council that:

1) It is the policy of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham that no changes should be made to the laws and ordinances of the City and County of Durham which would alter the nonconforming status of billboards, allow any billboard to be relocated, or allow any billboard to be upgraded or improved in anyway; and that

2) The officers of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham, or such other persons as may be delegated, shall communicate this resolution and the policy created by it to the governments of the City and County of Durham, to other officials, and to the people generally as may be necessary to accomplish the purpose of this policy.

Duly adopted by the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham at a meeting of the delegates, March 24, 2009.

billboard ban (via email, 3/24/09)

As a new board member of the WHHNA, I am adamantly opposed to the proposed changes in the law that would allow "upgrading" or electrification of any existing billboards. The current law protects the environment as well as the quiet and peaceful nature of our community. The current law should stand as is. Period.

Respectfully,

ES
Durham

rockwood email list (via email, 3/24/09)

Hi,

The Rockwood neighborhood email list was surprised to discover today that a pro-billboard resolution has been submitted on our behalf. As a Rockwood resident, I'll be at the meeting tonight to voice opposition to the resolution. I know nothing about the INC or the nature of its meetings, so if anyone can provide me with further information, I would appreciate it. The main thing I would like to say is that our neighboorhood email list seems to substantially oppose the "Rockwood" resolution.

Thanks,

SM
Durham

New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee

As chair of the New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee, I have recently been apprised of the proposal to "electrify" a number of billboards in Durham. Inspection of a locational data base indicates that six of these have the potential to impact the New Hope "viewshed".

This is of potential significance to New Hope resources in at least three ways:

(1) the Committee has from the start been concerned with the overall aesthetics of the New Hope corridor and has taken many steps to protect it;

(2) the Committee has for many years looked at the impact of light leakage from projects in or near the corridor and its impact on "night sky" resources--indeed, we were among the first to raise this concern, which is now embedded in Durham's land use reviews;

(3) the Committee has looked at the New Hope corridor as helping mark a boundary between Durham and Chapel Hill. Bright and ever-changing billboards would very likely blur that boundary.

I intend to raise this issue as an agenda item at the Committee's April 9 meeting. I have every expectation, based on the New Hope Plan and the steps we have taken over the years to advise on its implementation, that the Committee will strongly condemn the lighting of billboards in our area of concern.

Robert G. Healy
Chair, New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee
March 22, 2009