Billboard industry releases long-expected proposal to loosen Durham's outdoor ad restrictions

After more than a year of debate and discussion in public forums over the general idea, an attorney for the billboard industry -- long operating in Durham under one of the stricter outdoor advertising rules in the state -- released on Friday a proposed Unified Development Ordinance text amendment that would loosen the rules on billboards in the Bull City.

There's few surprises in the text amendment, which was filed by former county commissioner Lewis Cheek, who's now representing Fairway Outdoor Advertising as the applicant requesting the change.

There's also likely little new here to change the minds of opponents to any changes. Indeed, the incoming president of Durham's Inter-Neighborhood Council, Tom Miller, was one of the founding fathers of the INC a quarter century ago -- and one of the leading advocates for the billboard restrictions that sit in place today in Durham.

New billboard construction has been frozen in Durham since the 1980s, a governmental action that lead to lawsuits from the industry and, later, attempts in the General Assembly to water-down Durham's restrictions.

Today, billboards can be repaired but not replaced, and then only if they're less than 25% damaged -- a rule that, incidentally, Cheek's filing calls out as no longer in compliance with state law. (More on that later.)

Nonetheless, the filing sets the field for debate in the sphere of elected officialdom, after more than a year's discussion in the halls of the INC and other civic groups.

As the Herald-Sun notes in its coverage this morning, the amendment would create an overlay district encompassing the Durham Freeway (north of RTP only), portions of I-85, US 15-501, US 501 from I-85 to the Person Co. line, US 70 from I-85 to Wake Co., and along the East End Connector.

Within that district, the relocation of existing billboards would be allowed -- with 1,000' buffers between billboards on the same side of roads, 200' separation between new billboard sites and a same-road-side residential property, and 500' separation between new sites and any historic residential districts.

Those latter two restrictions come with a caveat: any existing billboards that are within such distances can be replaced on site.

All billboards would be subject to replacement and would need to be constructed out of all-steel monopole designs, with landscaping at the base -- or the submission of payment-in-lieu-of funds to local governments' Durham gateway projects. For all replaced and/or relocated billboards, the total display "face" of the signage could be no larger than the size of existing signage. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The ordinance would create no restriction on the number of billboards that could be removed, reconstructed, or located -- though only one-quarter could be converted to digital signage, a controversial outdoor advertising technique that has been at the heart of the proposed changes. (The regulation would still enforce Durham's restriction against any new new billboards.)

Electronic signs would display images for eight seconds at minimum, with maximum illumination levels of 7,500 candela per sq. meter daytime, 1,000 candela per sq. meter at night. Public safety and community messages would be displayed for one eight-second cycle per minute, or with emergency warning or Amber/Silver Alert messages for up to two hours.

Attorney Cheek argues in the amendment justification transmittal that the presence of "public service and public safety announcements" is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, presumably as a public benefit that transcends the private benefit that outdoor advertising firms like Fairway receive from their ad sales.

(Naturally, digital billboards are likely much more profitable to billboard firms as well, since they have the opportunity to sell multiple, less-expensive slots and to avoid the need to manually repaint or replaster signs with each new advertiser; instead, they simply upload a new file. Billboard industry advocates have argued that the presence of digital signage would make outdoor advertising more affordable to small businesses.)

Cheek also points out, as noted above, what he claims to be "changes in state law that present conflicts with" the segment of today's Unified Development Ordinance; he cites two NC cases from this decade that deal with local governments' regulation of billboards.

In the 2008 case, Lamar v. Stanly Co., outdoor advertising firm Lamar relocated one of its existing billboards 50' when NCDOT widened a road and informed the firm that its billboard needed to be relocated. Stanly County claimed that the firm had no basis to relocate the billboard under its new zoning matter, but the NC Supreme Court noted that NCDOT regulations "allow a permit holder to move a nonconforming sign with the bounds of the sign location/site." The case turned on the NCDOT's pre-emption of local regulations over local zoning ordinances where the two conflict.

In the second, a suit between Fairway and Gastonia's Board of Adjustment, the firm was changing both the advertising and the face panel on a billboard when a zoning inspector stopped by to say that the work lacked a permit and could not continue. Fairway (in the form of Morris Communications Co.) argued that DOT regulations allowed the replacement of sign face as well as frame, and won on appeal to the Supreme Court.

It's not clear how much either of these cases has impact on Durham's existing regulations -- though Cheek cites Durham's rule that a billboard must be removed if it is more than 25% damaged in value, and saying that that conflicts with DOT's 50% of value rule, upheld in the Gastonia case two years before the UDO's adoption.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The matter is tentatively on the agenda for the January 2010 Joint City-County Planning Committee, a board that includes several City Council and County Commission members, plus the chair of the citizen-member Durham Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission will also hold a hearing on the matter and render their non-binding opinion; other public hearings from the Planning Dept. will also provide an opportunity for input.

As the Herald-Sun notes, the discussion to date in the public sphere has tilted strongly to opposition, with a DCVB-commissioned study this summer finding residents overwhelmingly opposing any change to Durham's existing restrictions on billboards.

That opposition to change was progressively stronger among residents who've lived in Durham for longer and longer periods -- the kind of residents most likely to be active and engaged in local issues.

Still, the industry has lobbied public officials hard, from campaign contributions to the widely-reported donation of free ads for non-profit groups to whom elected officials were favorable.

In fact, playing guess-the-target has been a favorite pastime of BCR's in the last couple of years, cruising roads like US 70 and trying to figure out which non-profit might be the favorite of an elected official. Our only solid guess: the non-profit Durham TRY, working against youth use/abuse of alcohol, always sure to warm the heart of teetotaler Howard Clement.

Most elected officials have been non-committal over how they stand on the issue; only onetime-Republican Clement seems to have signaled his likely support, on the grounds of public safety. Others, the H-S notes, are waiting to see the outcome of public hearings on the matter.

Photo credit: Flickr, available for reuse via Creative Commons.

Comments

[Rob Gillespie]

It is absolutely no surprise that Fairway waited until after the election to submit this request. They knew that if it became a campaign issue, opposition to the change would come out loud and strong.

With 72% of Durhamites opposed to any changes, the choice City Council and the County Commissioners should make is quite obvious. Durham's residents do not want billboards. We are trying our hardest to remove blight from our urban neighborhoods. Billboards are blight. We've been patiently waiting for the past twenty years, as the billboards have slowly been removed from town. Any change to the ordinance means that the remaining billboards will be here to stay. Even worse-- a quarter of them will be replaced with obnoxious signs that change message roughly 8 times per minute.

Residents of Durham: now is the time to write the Planning Director, City Manager, City Council, and County Commissioners to let them know your opposition to the ordinance change.

[Erik Landfried]

Here's hoping the elected officials listen to their constituents on this one.

I love one of the justifications being that the digital billboards can display Amber and Silver alerts. Um, don't those NCDOT road signs already do that (that is, when they don't just say "NCDOT Road Sign under test")?

[Myers Sugg]

When will this end? If you really care about what makes Durham unique and recognize why Durham's character is the envy of the Triangle in so many positive ways, then opposition to this well funded proposal should be obvious, and vocalized.

I can't express it more clearly. This effort is a major business venture by the billboard industry, and their attorneys, whereby lining pockets with significant revenue is the objective. Let's not pretend that Ebillboards, and all of their PSA's will more than compensate us for the burden of their visual blight? I consider myself a well informed citizen and don't depend on billboards (electronic or standard) to keep me that way.

Having lived in Durham for going on 12 years, I've witnessed so much positive change. I'm proud to tell others I live in Durham. I regularly hear from people who look to Durham for entertainment, and its "cool and unique" offerings. Raleigh doesn't have what we have, nor does Chapel Hill. Certainly there are areas where we can and need to improve; however people from other parts of the US who are looking to relocate, see why Durham is a place to consider living. Let's not litter it with electronic, flashing, Vegas style billboards. Making certain we maintain, and continue to improve what makes us interesting should be our highest priority. Looking like everywhere else USA is not gonna get us there.

Enjoy the link to a video about our southern neighbor, Columbia SC, and its Ebillboards. How do they make you feel? Warm and fuzzy inside? Do you think they add character to Columbia? Would you consider relocating there because of how well informed their citizenry must be because of these signs?

Myers Sugg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdMsTnIIgO4&feature=related

[Kelly]

I agree with Myers. This is nothing more than a baldfaced attempt by the billboard industry to run roughshod over the wishes of the VAST MAJORITY of Durham citizens. They want to exponentially increase the profits they can reap from their billboards while giving nothing substantive to the community. No jobs. No increased tax revenues for Durham on the dramatically increased profits Fairway stands to make off of these hideous eyesores. Sorry--but your piddly offer of PSAs does not fool us.

I want to know how much Fairway and its proponents have contributed to the campaigns of City Council & BOCC members in an effort to influence their votes. The citizens of Durham have spoken clearly on this. WE DON'T WANT THESE BILLBOARDS!

[Oh Snap! Durham]

Listen to the public, not the industry lobby - keep the restrictions on billboards. They're eyesores.

[GreenLantern]

(( I thought about what I just wrote below, and now I'm having second and third thoughts. If there's nothing in it for us other than advertising Durham business, the visual blight would get old very quickly. But if Durham got a very significant portion of the revenue used to pay for the Rescue Mission, etc., it might be worth some haggling......I'm struggling on this one.))

Isn't there some room to compromise on the number and location of electronic billboards?

For instance, 1)new electronic billboards can only be placed at the site of an existing billboard (regardless of condition), 2) the number of billboards is limited to one each(2-sided if necessary) at the major gateways outside the city such as I-85, I-40, US70, 15-501, & 147 (RTP only), 3) no billboards in urbanized or developed residential neighborhoods (or those in planning), and 4) a series of restrictions on luminosity, size, hours of operation, etc., and 5) some existing billboards owned by Fairway in other locations in the city or county would have to be removed to maintain the final count.

The county lines would be the place to start. For example, on I85 there would only be one at Durham/Orange, one at Durham/Granville, etc. No billboards in the city proper from say, Red Mill road to US70(Hillsborough exit) west of town. One at the Person/Durham county line, one on I40 at Durham/Wake. One at 147 just north of the RTP boundary might be reasonable given the shows and events going on downtown.

The 147/I85 split, I40 Durham/Orange line, US70 Durham/Wake line, 15-501/I40 interchange, and everyplace else in the interior of Durham County and city would be too urbanized and off-limits.

By my count, that's only FIVE electronic billboards, in very restricted places with very restrictive operational guidelines. If that's enough to make money and not disturb a large number of residents nearby, then take it or leave it.

More than a few in the woods next to the interstate where it's practically rural would be too much for me. I don't want to see us become Las Vegas anytime soon. Then again, I might not want to see more than TWO on I85 at each county line.

[TrinityRez]

I have not been following this issue very closely. However, the billboards currently along the highways of Durham look outdated and in disrepair.

-Are people against billboards in general (I fall into this category)? Is this even an option?

-If the digital billboards are not allowed does that mean we have to live with the antiquated awful looking blah billboards?

-I saw a digital billboard on 40 toward Gboro and it looked 10 times better than what is currently allowed in Durham.

So if we are stuck with billboards I vote for the cleaner more aesthetically pleasing digital boards.
And the argument that they are bright and blinding is overstated.

[Rob]

@TrinityRez-
Billboards are nonconforming structures in Durham, so they can only have repairs that total up to 25% of their current value. The purpose of this is to remove the billboards. As soon as a billboard is damaged by an act of God (or human stupidity) and the repair price is more than 25% of its value, then the billboard must be torn down and it can not be replaced. Since 1984, Durham County has gone from 209 billboards to 89 billboards. The national attrition rate is around 1.5% per year, and Durham is near that rate.

Yes, it will take a long time to get rid of every last billboard in Durham County. Yet, they are coming down. The antiquated billboards will stay, but the second they don't meet code and the repair price is more than 25% of the value, the billboard will be condemned and torn down.

If you know of any billboards that look like they don't meet code, then please let us know. I will gladly call Zoning & Code Enforcement and ask for them to inspect the property. Hopefully that will lead to a few less billboards in Durham.

Yeah, a long rant. In the end it comes down to this: the current ordinance is geared toward a complete removal of billboards in Durham County. It will take a while to reach this goal, but in the end they will be gone.

[Rob]

@GreenLantern-
As it is, Durham gets very minimal revenue from the billboard industry. In 2008, Fairway paid a little bit more than $2,600 in property taxes to the city. Additionally, their regional office is in Raleigh, so they have negligible employment impact on Durham. I don't see how Fairway can provide anything near the operating budget of the Durham Rescue Mission. Yes, they make a huge amount of money (each electronic billboard provides approximately $14,000 a month in revenue to Fairview), but they only pay $2,600 a year in taxes.

Billboards have no public benefit. Even if PSAs are forced to be 13% of ads, they will still serve as a nuisance and a major source of urban blight.

[Kelly]

Green Lantern:

You can find a map of all the current billboards in Durham here: http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A280306

You can find a lot of information about the issue as well as many, many letters and articles by Durham citizens on the topic at the following website:
http://supportdurhambillboardban.com/index.html

There are other reasons to oppose these electronic billboards:
1. the carbon footprint of Fairway's proposed 25 electronic billboards will be equivalent to a new 325-unit housing development.

2. Billboards contribute almost nothing to Durham's economy--no taxes & no jobs. Fairway's current property tax contribution to Durham is about $2,500 -- for ALL its current billboards. Billboards are taxed as property, not on the amount of revenue they generate, so they will continue to pay less in property taxes for ALL existing billboards than many Durham homeowners pay on their homes. At the same time, they'll be exponentially increasing the profits they reap from the billboards--all of which will go into their out-of-state pockets. They will generate no jobs for Durham residents.

3. Allowing electronic billboards now will make them much more expensive to get rid of down the road. The Highway Beautification Act requires cash compensation for the value of the structure plus lost revenue. Fairway has estimated the value of the "donated" non-profit advertising at "millions of dollars." That means the value of the other six-seven ads they would run on their billboards would be six or seven times "millions of dollars." None of this will generate tax revenues for Durham. But it means that if, in the future, we wanted to remove one of their existing billboards, we would have to compensate for the HUGELY INCREASED lost revenue an electronic billboard would have compared to the regular billboard it replaced. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that for their "donation," Fairway is guaranteeing the future of these billboards.

4. The tacky, dilapidated state of some of their existing billboards is a harbinger of things to come for electronic billboards as well. If energy prices skyrocket and paying to maintain these screens and power these things up become prohibitively expensive or the technology becomes outdated (both of which are likely options at some point), do you think Fairway will maintain them any better than existing billboards? How will dim, half-burned out billboards look gracing our highways & streets?

[GreenLantern]

If billboards, conventional or illuminated, don't contribute signficantly to the revenue stream of the city/county government, local charities, or can be attributed to higher retail sales, then I see no reason to change the current ban and restrictions. I won't argue the effectiveness of advertising, since most of us act on these triggers without knowing it. There's also a possibility that overt ads on flashy digital billboards elicits a negative psychological response that defeats the purpose of the ad, depending on how one feels about the how the ad is delivered rather than what the sponsor is trying to communicate.

I agree that they CAN be more attractive than partially-dilapidated billboards, but only when one or two are out along rural (nothing but trees) interstate gateways. For example, if one of these cycling ads for Northgate Mall, the Life & Science Museum, Durham Bulls, or a DPAC show caused many travelers to make a detour to Durham on their way to Florida, it might actually be an economic benefit to help save and create jobs. If it were placed on I85 south between the Butner and Northside exits in Granville county, it may be very effective in giving travelers time to consider a visit if they noticed the ads more and the images lasted longer in their minds than a conventional one. The bright signs might not be objectionable out there, but only because I don't think there are other billboards or development competing for your attention. In urban Durham there's information overload with and without billboards, even amongst our many trees. One of these signs could be considered dangerous to driving.

[Khalid]

Digital signs > Static Billboards

The amendment rewrite seems fair to me. I don't understand the demonization of advertising. I haven't heard any substantive reasoning behind removing the signs. I think billboards peppering the entire highway landscape tacky as well but going to the other extreme is not acceptable either.

The balance and compromise represented in the proposal seems acceptable at first glance. Personally, billboards keep me awake on long road trips. They also let me know where I can stop for something to eat. Sometimes you learn interesting things about a community and events (i.e. DPAC) occuring in that community.

Having seen the digital boards in action...They are not bright...don't present more of driving hazard than observing scenic landscapes, etc. while driving. According to the statistics, my viewpoint is in the minority but statistical data is only as reliable as its funding source...

[Khalid]

Let's talk finances now...

If a Durham hotel/restaurant/business advertises on billboards, that represents money for the Durham community. I can't say that its substantial but I can say that its greater than ZERO.

Are billboards advertisements considered a service and not subject to sales taxes? I'm curious about this one and would like an informed answer.

If so I'm sure there is room to push for a "permitting/impact fee" for the signs.

[Kelly]

Khalid: Durham doesn't receive any money from an ad placed on such a billboard. The fees for the advertising go to Fairway . . . . which isn't based in Durham. The billboards are not taxed through sales tax or a business tax. They are taxed as property. As I said earlier, all Durham gets from Fairway is a pittance of property taxes (around $2600 for ALL of their billboards combined). This amount would not change significantly with the upgraded billboards--although Fairway would be making a LOT more money on each of them.

In the past, Durham fought very hard to fight billboard blight and to put its current ordinance in place. And the current billboard ban has very strong support among Durham citizens.

[JeffS]

We should reply by further restricting the billboard ordinances.

Why anyone (other than a bought-off politician) would allow billboards is beyond me.

[Rob]

@Khalid-
"statistical data is only as reliable as its funding source..."

Are you accusing the DCVB of falsifying data? What makes you believe the data is false? Do you have any evidence? Why do you make these charges? Do you know of any study that shows more than 6% of Durhamites support electronic billboards?

Billboards may keep you awake on long trips, but when they are built directly across NC-147 from my neighborhood, they keep me awake at night too. The only problem is that I don't get to drive on by it, because it is stuck there permanently. Billboards also decrease my property value, are a source of urban blight, and lead to disinvestment and deterioration in inner-city neighborhoods. Why should we let Fairway reap huge profits at a large cost to Durham's taxpayers?

I'm with JeffS--I want to see all billboards removed. That is the purpose of the current legislation, and it is doing its job at the natural attrition rate of billboards.

[Natalie]

One of the things I love most about Durham is it's lack of billboards. Instead of focusing on whatever crazy thing is being advertised I am encouraged to enjoy our natural and built environment.

I was raised in a Fairways homestate. Billboards are everywhere. EVERYWHERE. When I moved to NC it was such a pleasant shock to not see them. I am glad that Durham continues to remove the remaining billboards from our roads.

[Erik Landfried]

The only arguments I've heard FOR this ordinance amendment are either:

A. The notion that government should never regulate private investments like this. If that's what you believe, fine. But I think it's been proven over and over again through municipal elections that this point of view does NOT match the majority of Durhamites.

B. That electronic billboards are nicer and less distracting than static billboards. Anyone who wishes to make that argument, all I can say is, "Good luck".

C. The new signs will allow for public service messages and Amber/Silver Alerts. If the City wants that type of thing, why not use the NCDOT road signs that seemingly sit there virtually unused? I've seen Amber and Silver alerts posted on those...if there are no traffic conditions to report, maybe they could also provide other service announcements.

D. That billboards bring investment to Durham by allowing local companies to advertise their services to passers-by.

To me, only D. has anything resembling a persuasive argument attached to it. So...what does the Durham Chamber of Commerce think of this proposal? What kind of tangible economic benefits do they estimate for the City/County of Durham?

Whatever benefits exist would still need to be weighed against the negatives, but until that is available, I don't see how anyone could make a rational argument for making a change in the ordinance.

[bentley]

Kelly (and others) have stated things like "Durham gets from Fairway is a pittance of property taxes (around $2600 for ALL of their billboards combined). This amount would not change significantly with the upgraded billboards--although Fairway would be making a LOT more money on each of them." I'd be curious to hear from someone who understands how this would really work - it is my understanding that property taxes are based on land *and* structure, and I'd imagine the value of the structure would be quite high for a new, electronic billboard (vs. the old, dilapidated ones there now) and result in *significantly* higher tax revenues for Durham. That being said, I'm not sure it would be enough $$$ to sway the opposition, but I'd be curious to know the facts on this.

[Khalid]

I'm still not understanding the anger and outrage associated with EVERY billboard. I don't believe in all or nothing solutions. The truth is always somewhere in the middle...

@Rob: I already knew who funded the data. DCVB has conducted many surveys in the past. No criminal allegations here...I know that surveys can be skewed (sometimes unintentionally) by the questions that you are ask. Ex. Do you think billboards should be plastered across Durham? My answer would be an emphatic NO which would align me with the other 70% of Durmites.

At the same time, what is the sample size of this group. Some people just don't respond to surveys. I've never been asked to participate in a survey. I take that back I have gotten calls but I was in the middle of eating dinner...sacred time.

[Khalid]

@ Rob: Urban disinvestment...blah blah...really??

Oh never mind...I won't even touch that one.

In essence, excess is bad...smart regualation is good.

It would be cool to have a sign promoting Eastway Village, Golden Belt Arts District, Hayti Heritage Center, etc.

My fear is that over-regulation will lead Durham down the slippery slope of Cary-dom. A bland, beige world where I get lost after visiting many times because everything looks exactly the same. Yes I may be exaggerating but I decided to join the party.

My campaign..."Keep some billboards in Durham!"

Why not contests for most creative advertisement on digital billboards like the Golden Leaf awards?

[Retro-Grouch]

Khalid, I also usually believe in the truth or sweet spot residing somewhere in the middle as well.

But in this case I believe the "you give them an inch, then they'll take a mile" phrase is what is happening.

I think this is why the overwhelming majority of people in Durham without ties to the billboard industry don't want to budge on this and are clamoring for no stinkin new billboards, and no digitial billboards. period.

I would like to smoke whatever TrinityRez is filling his bowl with if he thinks that the digital billboards are not that bright and distracting.

But seriously, if the billboards look in bad shape, umm... who's fault is that? Fingers would seem to point to the billboard company that lets them get run down.

Bottom line, do we need more acreage for car companies and fast food joints to let us know where there wares are being hocked? I don't think so.

[John]

Electronic Billboards are the equivalent of commercials the raise the volume during their 30sec spot. It is painfully annoying and distracting which is their intention. So if the regular billboards are getting drivers attention they want something that will, make it bright, make it animated etc... Wonderful idea, so instead of focusing on the road we can divert drivers attention to the billboard. Heck, if it causes an accident we may end up on TV or front page of the newspaper... What a great idea.

This issue should be killed as surely as it will lead to deaths on the road.

[Will]

Screw billboards - advertise on blogs! :) http://j.mp/2w2duK

[Michael Oehler]

No new billboards. No electronic billboards. This is a no brainer. If our elected officials bend on this one, I will be beyond dissappointed. This is clearly a powerplay by an industry outside of our town hoping to make a quick buck by detracting from the quality of our life. Must I repeat... There is absolutely no reason (public adverstisements or not) that this should be allowed to happen.

Council members, county commissioners, are you listening? Where are you now? Where is your leadership? What is your vision of how Durham should look? Why the silence?

[Michael Bacon]

Dear Fairway,

Go the hell away. We don't want you here. We don't want your ads, we don't want your tax revenue, and we don't want your pittances of donated ad space. Your company has a history of dishonesty and false promises to communities, and you take money out of the economy and blight our city's skyline with ugliness. In short, please know where you are not wanted, and leave.

Hugs and Kisses,
Durham

[Seth Vidal]

So if the annual revenue from the billboards is $2600/yr - is that the amount it will take to make sure durham doesn't waiver on our billboard ban?

If so - I think I might be willing to pony up some of that each year in exchange for removing unsightly blight from our cityscape.

:)

I do not want fairway, or any other billboard company here. I'm with michael oehler and michael bacon.

[Todd Patton]

Allowing more billboards, especially electronic ones, is a terrible idea. They don't create local jobs. They don't provide local tax revenue. They are ugly. The idea of allowing existing ones to be replaced with electronic versions akin to those hated popup ads on your computer is nuts.

The contrast between Fairway paying just $2,600 per year in taxes for all their signs in Durham, but would demand hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation to take down just one, is both stunning and absurd. Fairway's dishonesty is appalling.

Durham should continue on the path toward zero billboards as the existing ones become more dilapidated with time. Supporting this change would be a huge step backwards for Durham.

[John Schelp]

"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."

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

The billboard industry is campaigning hard to overturn Durham's existing ban on billboards. To counter the misinformation coming from industry, folks in the community are launching a new website today at http://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)...

* Fairway's billboards now produce about $2,600 in county tax revenue; switching some to digital "would still not generate significant revenue"

* Local government cannot require the signs to carry public-service messages

* Digital billboards could be found to violate the federal Highway Beautification Act

* Allowing digital billboards while safety studies are pending could expose Durham to liability for accidents

* Full sunlight reaches about 6,500 "nits;" a digital billboard can reach 10,000 nits.

Please visit our new website. Electronic billboards are a bad idea for Durham. Together, we can stop the billboard industry... http://supportdurhambillboardban.com/

[Chuckde424]

Far too much fire/heat and far too little light comes out of this discussion. Electronic bilboards are used in many places and seem to be effective at providing information. Durham do to its road grid and unfamiliararity to non-residents could benefit from more effective information about what's happening and where. In the case of emergencies, these things could be very effective devices. Much of the fire in this discussion seems to come from the previous debate which apparently got nasty. In my view, that is ancient history that has no material contribution to make to the current discussion.

If there is any way to deflate the rehtoric on this topic and just deal with the facts, I believe that a reasonable conclusion could be reached that would benefit Durham in the broad sense (information wise, tax wise, sustainablity wise, etc.) Some one asserted that the carbon footprint of Fairway's proposed 25 electronic billboards will be equivalent to a new 325-unit housing development. As I understand it, these billboards can actually be combined with solar panels to make their carbon footprint almost disappear. Let's just get the facts and see what makes sense.

[Rob]

@Chuckde424-
The billboards do not benefit Durham in a tax sense. As has been said before, Fairway currently pays only $2600 a year in property taxes for all of its billboards. Even if property tax is doubled or tripled for the electronic billboards, Fairway will still provide an anemic share of Durham's revenue. Additionally, the signs are not sustainable at all. They have a huge carbon footprint. There is absolutely nothing in the proposed overlay that requires Fairway use solar energy to reduce or eliminate their carbon footprint. Durham can't trust Fairway to do this on their own, because Fairway has a history of wasting Durham's time and money with legislation over billboards. They're not a good corporate citizen in Durham, and we can not expect them to change their ways anytime soon.

I don't think the information provided by electronic billboards outweighs the heavy costs. Billboards will ruin Durham's skyline, pollute urban neighborhoods with light, and provide little real economic impact on Durham.

Additionally, your argument regarding Durham's confusing street grid doesn't hold very much water. One free 8-second message every minutes is not sufficient to provide directions. That is why we already have DOT electronic signs erected along NC-147, I-40, and I-85. They can provide directions to outsiders looking for specific events. I don't think electronic billboards and perform that task, especially with the proposed ordinance.

[Bull City Rising]

Late-breaking fun-fact update from City Councilman Mike Woodard.

Not sure if this is fully representative of public opinion (any more than the comments here are from a self-selected readership), since there's been some calls-to-arms circulating on listservs since Sunday -- but Woodard shares that to date, the email traffic he has received on the item is running:

84 opposed to any changes
0 in favor

No one ever said neighborhoods in Durham weren't organized.

[GreenLantern]

Make that 85 opposed...

Even us fiscal moderate, social libertarians have limits.

[John Schelp]

folks,

Please take a moment to read this case against Fairway's efforts. It will be well worth your time...

http://supportdurhambillboardban.com/billboards.pdf

85-0 against big, tall blinking billboards on I-85. I love Durham.

[barry]

You know what's really amazing? That this is even an issue. There's absolutely no constituency in Durham for changing the billboard ordinance, and yet a handful of lobbyists are able to muck things up to the extent that ordinary citizens with their own day-to-day problems getting by have to find the time to organize to defeat this utterly useless proposal.

There's simply no upside in it for Durham.

So how can any of our elected officials even be considering voting for this thing?

[Billboard Companies]

I say allow digital billboards and become the Las Vegas of North Carolina!