Billboard proponents, opponents face off in Herald-Sun
December 22, 2008
The opinion page in Sunday's Herald-Sun offered a useful point-counterpoint on the billboards ordinance debate, which as we've discussed here would allow relocation and beyond-repair upgrades to existing structures will allowing a chunk of the signage to convert to digital billboards.
On the "for" side stands Paul Hickman of Fairway Outdoor Advertising:
The Fairway proposal will permit the relocation of
billboards only in non-residential areas along specific parts of U.S.
70, I-85, 15-501 and the Durham Freeway where billboards currently are
located.
However, the number of billboards in Durham will not increase because
the Fairway proposal caps the number of billboards at 100, the same
number that presently exists. So, the effect of the Fairway proposal
will be to redistribute current billboards and reduce the billboard
clusters that exist in certain areas....
Digital billboards will benefit Durham in many significant ways. Each sign will be limited to seven messages per minute, of which one will be donated permanently for use by nonprofit organizations and for public service announcements -- a donation to the community worth millions of dollars....
The Fairway proposal makes good sense for Durham. It is a "win-win" scenario in which billboard owners benefit from increased revenues, and the community benefits from a more rational distribution of billboards, more attractive billboards, public service announcements and faster access to emergency information. Increased tax revenue is just the icing on the cake. Everyone in Durham should enthusiastically support the Fairway proposal.
Digital billboards will benefit Durham in many significant ways. Each sign will be limited to seven messages per minute, of which one will be donated permanently for use by nonprofit organizations and for public service announcements -- a donation to the community worth millions of dollars....
The Fairway proposal makes good sense for Durham. It is a "win-win" scenario in which billboard owners benefit from increased revenues, and the community benefits from a more rational distribution of billboards, more attractive billboards, public service announcements and faster access to emergency information. Increased tax revenue is just the icing on the cake. Everyone in Durham should enthusiastically support the Fairway proposal.
On the opposition side, arguments from John Schelp and Larry Holt:
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....
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.
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.
See the arguments on both sides in the H-S -- it's worth a read.
Thanks for the entry, Kevin. Keep in mind that the billboard industry wants to change our ordinance so they can erect electronic billboards on stretches of the Durham Freeway, 15-501, I-85 and US 70.
So, we can walk along New Hope Creek and enjoy a big bright ad for used cars. Jog around Duke's golf course and see ads for hamburgers. Have dinner at American Tobacco and enjoy a bright horizon -- flashing good deals on teeth whitening and J&R's Cigar Outlet in Burlington.
Durham residents can wake up, work, play and sleep near one... :)
And, you gotta love the billboard industry's sudden new-found interest in the environment. Of course, that hasn't stopped them from recently cutting down even more trees in front of their billboards -- or putting up new electric ones -- each with a carbon footprint matching 13 houses.
Here's some good background from Scenic America... http://www.scenic.org/dsus.pdf
Posted by: John Schelp | December 22, 2008 at 08:16 AM
Educate me. Have there been any meaninful discussions about how to regulate the intensity/brightness of these new boards? My eye tells my brain that the fundamentally offensive feature of these LED boards is their intense brightness in comparison with illuminated street signs and traditional billboards.
Posted by: Tar Heelz | December 22, 2008 at 09:37 AM
Driver safety should be reason enough to ban these billboards. I've seen then in other parts of the state and Virginia and they are really annoying and bright to compensate for sunlight. In addition, they are ugly and a waste energy. Hideola. No, thanks.
Posted by: Visconti | December 22, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Just what we need—blinding distractions, changing message 7 times a minute and spewing 108 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere a year.
The absence of political leadership on this issue is deafening.
Posted by: Steve Bocckino | December 22, 2008 at 12:12 PM
The argument that they will 'benefit' the community with public service ads is complete and total B.S.
Fairway and company will undoubtedly deduct the value of this 'contribution' from their corporate income taxes, meaning that one way or another, we will be paying for the dang things.
As someone who lives in west Durham near I-85, the last thing we need is MORE light pollution from from these overly bright billboards, not to mention the distration they will pose for drivers.
It is time for someone - anyone - from the City Council and BOCC to step up and say "NO".
Posted by: Todd Patton | December 22, 2008 at 05:55 PM
@John
I don't think you are strengthening your argument with the claim that "these electronic billboards create an unsafe environment on the road". I agree with you that these would be a blight for Durham and that they MIGHT create a safety problem, but until FHWA or whoever else completes their research, any claim that billboards create a safety hazard on the roads is purely conjecture.
Don't get me wrong, I hope that the safety argument can be used in the future because I think billboards are not good for urban areas and I agree with all of the other arguments you make. But to me, stating that billboards creat an unsafe environment at this point is really no better than the billboard companies' "research" stating the contrary. Just my two cents - keep fighting the good fight.
Posted by: Erik | December 22, 2008 at 07:43 PM
Thanks for your note, Erik. That information came from Scenic America. For more background, folks can visit http://www.scenic.org/dsus.pdf (see slides #5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11).
These bullets are from slide #9...
* If the motorist spends enough time to read and comprehend the sign, by definition they have taken their eyes away from the driving task too long
* Digital signs are designed to pull drivers’ attention from the roadway, otherwise they are useless as advertising
* Drivers already have too much distraction inside and outside the car
* Digital signs, because they are especially distracting due to bright light, vibrant color, and image changes or motion, divert attention from official signs that are necessary for the safe operation of the car
Posted by: John | December 22, 2008 at 09:35 PM
What about the idea that digital signs actually slow traffic? People have become so accustomed to advertising that they ignore it, hence the appeal of something digital for our ADD society.
Sometime later today I will be passing one of the largest digital signs, for a truck dealership on I-85 at the Georgia/Alabama state line. It's a great reminder of the CST time change, and I look forward to it on every trip. It makes me slow down to read it.
Posted by: KeepDurhamDifferent! | December 23, 2008 at 09:04 AM
Hmmm. Say it's true that some cars may slow down to read electronic billboards. Well then, that's another safety issue. Because other cars won't be slowing down.
Many others will maintain speed. (Think of folks on cruise control and veteran long-haul truck drivers.) So, if a car in front of you suddenly slows down to read a bright billboard -- that could create a potential hazard on the road. :)
Safety. Blight. Environment. Taxpayer risk. There are plenty of different reasons to oppose this move by the billboard industry.
Posted by: John | December 23, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Don't worry, the Fairway proposal in the city limits is dead on arrival. There are no benefits, and it's really a "lose/lose" situation no matter how you slice it. However, they might have a chance for compromise in the county by having a few (3-4) of these billboards set up outside the city limits, or just over into Orange and Granville counties. You still reach a significant share of both local and interstate market, but with fewer drivers changing lanes or going on/off ramp while looking at all the pretty billboard lights in the middle of town. If Fairway can't make a profit on such a compromise, then they should just forget it and move on down the road.
Posted by: GreenLantern | December 23, 2008 at 02:15 PM
GreenLantern,
I live just outside the city limits. Don't put the blinding distractions in my neighborhood in the name of "compromise." Same thing goes for Orange and Granville Counties.
Posted by: Steve Bocckino | December 23, 2008 at 05:45 PM
One or two billboards would look great on I85 from East Club Blvd. right on up to Falls Lake! Driving down the "dead zone" from Creedmoor, it's wonderful to think that we can keep up to date with the shows at the the new DPAC, the NC Lottery, the area sports schedules, all of our local attractions like the Museum of Science, and reminding us of the all the new Gentlemen's Clubs that are open and will be opening for business all the way down to Charlotte. Durham sure looks like it's finally moving into the 21st century with those high-tech signs!
Do you really think Fairway is spending all this money and effort if they didn't think they had a good chance to pass these proposals? Given the new makeup of the city council, there's a good chance Fairway will get some of what it wants. There will be one or two more tax and spend liberals seated in council as a result of the last election, who might be more inclined to new approving this source of revenue than you might think. Their interests are tied to keeping money flowing into the hands of their constituents, particularly the lower income folks who voted them in along with Obama. They've seen a city with far too much focus on giving money to the elites and to big business, and now it's their turn. You might want to consider a compromise if it means keeping these billboards out of our city limits.
Or, you might try opposing all new spending proposals for things that only benefit a few neighborhood interests, but dry up funds for taking care of truly critical infrastructure, education, and human services needed by the less fortunate in this economic downturn. Take away the elite special interest's feeding trough and you don't need any new revenues from billboards.
Posted by: GreenLantern | December 23, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Letter: Durham can't afford electronic billboards
Herald-Sun, 23 Dec 2008
I oppose Fairway Advertising's efforts to amend Durham's ordinances to allow it to erect electronic billboards. In Sunday's Herald-Sun, John Schelp and Larry Holt reported distressing facts about the carbon footprint of Fairway's proposed 25 electronic billboards, which will be equivalent to a new 325-unit housing development.
Fairway's proposal that we amend ordinances so they can build electronic billboards flies in the face of the efforts of many Durham residents and organizations working to make Durham a greener, sustainable carbon-neutral community.
Equally distressing, allowing electronic billboards now will make them much more expensive to get rid of down the road. Schelp's article states that the Highway Beautification Act requires cash compensation for the value of the structure plus lost revenue. Fairway's article estimates the value of the "donated" non-profit advertising at "millions of dollars." By extension, the value of the other six ads they would run on their billboards would be six times "millions of dollars."
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that for their "donation," Fairway is guaranteeing the future of these billboards. In order to take one down, Durham taxpayers would be obligated to compensate Fairway for the cost of the billboard plus the six- or seven-times millions of dollars of lost revenues.
That's a pretty good return on a donation for Fairway.
Durham gets a light- and carbon-polluting billboard we didn't ask for, putting advertising revenues in the pockets of an out-of-state company. Surely we can do better.
Kelly Jarrett
Durham
Posted by: John | December 24, 2008 at 07:16 AM