Sign code shakedown: sign code under attack from billboard companies - Cyburbia

		Cyburbia Forums \| Urban Planning Community > Cyburbia - urban planning community
Sign code shakedown: sign code under attack from billboard companies

Register Now for FREE!

Sponsors

User login
Username: * Password: Remember me Create new account Request new password

Google search

Sign code shakedown: sign code under attack from billboard companies

By Rambler at 2008/03/12 - 4:00pm

Now, while working as a planner in Cobb County, just NE of Atlanta, it feels like we are under attack. The City of Marietta recently lost a lawsuit with Lamar Advertising, in which Lamar's lawyers specifically attacked the entire sign ordinance on the wording of one provision. The City followed by passing a moratorium on all sign permits, however Lamar will be able to put up the billboard from the lawsuit: a brand new LED billboard that will now distract some of the nuttiest drivers I've ever seen. This is the news article covering the resolution:

http://www.mdjonline.com/content/index/showcontentitem/area/1/section/21

To make matters worse, it appears the state has been lobbied heavily by sign companies. Most local jurisdictions have passed or are passing new sign ordinance provisions limiting or prohibiting billboards completely. The response by the state is HB 1318, which is documented in this article:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/03/05/billboards_030

Most of my research indicates this is happening elsewhere in Metro Atlanta, but more importantly this is a confirmed nationwide effort on the efforts of the sign companies and their lawyer staff. Does anyone else have similar experience?

I apologize for the lengthy post, but this has me extremely upset with the situation. Being in a public staff position, I feel a bit limited with how vocal I can be. I hope some of you may be able to provide advice or at least make us feel like we're not alone.

Thanks.

11 comments

by boilerplater on Thu, 2008/03/06 - 9:43pm

Yeah, apparently the profits in these billboards are very high. Its depressing to see how much lobbying power the billboard companies have. They like to point out their right to make money off of a piece of property, but what about the public's right to a view uncluttered with visual blight? The problem is, aesthetic values are difficult to quantify, especially in monetary terms. Its difficult to demonstrate positive social effects of view preservation. When I was with the DOT in NJ, they used to cut down or top off tree that had been planted in the right-of-way in order to create clear views to bilboards which were outside the ROW. You might want to look into groups like Scenic America that have fought billboard proliferation. Write to companies (as a private citizen) that advertise on billboards to state your opposition and campaign to get others to do the same.

by RichmondJake on Fri, 2008/03/07 - 1:13am

Welcome to my world. The "outdoor advertising" industry has a strong lobby in Florida and is deep into the pockets of politicians in Tallahassee. Lamar is the 800-lb gorilla of the industry. I'll try and post links to the FL administrative code when I get to work tomorrow. Some of the crap adopted at the state level is disgusting including requirements of FDOT staff to trim vegetation insuring the visibility of billboards. Unbelievable. I spit on their graves.

by Rambler on Tue, 2008/03/11 - 3:32pm

Thank you both for the responses, that is very encouraging.

This was good advice, not only did I email the local state representative, I checked out Scenic America's website - what a fantastic resource for information! Oh, and the local representative? He is the freaking sponsor of the billboard bill in my second link. At the moment, I received a response saying he only had time to explain issues with his constituents. Not sure where he got that impression, but I'm awaiting a reply to my response. I'm expecting to get shrugged off.

by Dan on Tue, 2008/03/11 - 3:46pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Rambler

The City of Marietta recently lost a lawsuit with Lamar Advertising, in which Lamar's lawyers specifically attacked the entire sign ordinance on the wording of one provision

The Sign Code Shakedown. There's an article about it in the PlanningWiki.

http://planningwiki.cyburbia.org/Sign_code_shakedown

by Hink_Planner on Tue, 2008/03/11 - 3:49pm

In Ohio we have started to see this. I have heard of billboard company lawyers going to smaller Townships and trying to get sign codes thrown out so they can put up billboards in the time it takes to update their code. We recently updated our code to make sure this would not happen to us. A week or two ago we had someone come in looking into just that topic.....

by mgk920 on Tue, 2008/03/11 - 3:52pm

Quote:

Originally posted by boilerplater

I recalled a case a few years ago (ISTR that it was in Michigan) where the DOT, upon finding such illegal cutting, posted a sign on the public ROW saying (to the effect): "THESE TREES WERE ILLEGALLY CUT/Michigan Department of Transportation".

Mike.

by RichmondJake on Fri, 2009/11/27 - 2:40pm

We previously issued probably 6-8 permits for billboards per year. Our jurisdiction has issued just one in the past year. Granted, the industry is running out of places to locate new boards, but still, I think this cut-throat industry is hitting hard times. On our most recent trip to New Orleans, I would estimate at least 15% of the boards on the I-10 corridor displayed vacant advertising. Earlier this year, Lamar was trading as low at $6 a share on the stock exchange. Last Wednesday they closed at amost $30 a share. If I'm reading the charts correctly, their return on assets is pretty low but their sales and revenue per employee is above the industry average.

What's going on with this industry and what are your recent experiences?

by Tobinn on Mon, 2009/11/30 - 8:07pm

I recommend contacting the Legal Dept. at the City of Clearwater. They fought the billboard companies and mostly won.

Web:
http://www.myclearwater.com/gov/dept...rney/index.asp
Telephone:
(727) 562-4010

Fax:
(727) 562-4021

Also, check out this website:
http://scenicflorida.org/index.php/w...-c-jonson.html

It's for Scenic Florida by William "Bill" Jonson. Bill was a former (two-term) commissioner (and happens to be running again after taking the requisite time out of office) here in Clearwater who led the fight against the billboard companies. I know that he will be more than happy to help you.

by dvdneal on Tue, 2009/12/01 - 3:40pm

I feel fortunate, we have very few billboards left in the city (remnants of county zoning). Sadly, we have our first freeway being built with a new mall and all the trimmings, I fear our council may decide billboards are good if there is any kind of money in it for the city. At least we have the no billboards part of the sign code well established, for now.

by slsigns on Tue, 2010/02/16 - 4:20pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Rambler

Growing up and being educated in Virginia, outdoor advertising was almost non-existent in most areas. Only now do I understand how much this attributed to the beauty of its natural landscape. After moving to Atlanta, one of the first things I noticed while driving in was the endless number of billboards dotting the highways. Having never seen them in this density before, I was saddened at how much impact they had while traveling through Tennessee and Georgia.

Now, while working as a planner in Cobb County, just NE of Atlanta, it feels like we are under attack. The City of Marietta recently lost a lawsuit with Lamar Advertising, in which Lamar's lawyers specifically attacked the entire sign ordinance on the wording of one provision. The City followed by passing a moratorium on all sign permits, however Lamar will be able to put up the billboard from the lawsuit: a brand new LED billboard that will now distract some of the nuttiest drivers I've ever seen. This is the news article covering the resolution:

http://www.mdjonline.com/content/ind...a/1/section/21...

To make matters worse, it appears the state has been lobbied heavily by sign companies. Most local jurisdictions have passed or are passing new sign ordinance provisions limiting or prohibiting billboards completely. The response by the state is HB 1318, which is documented in this article:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/met...billboards_030...

Most of my research indicates this is happening elsewhere in Metro Atlanta, but more importantly this is a confirmed nationwide effort on the efforts of the sign companies and their lawyer staff. Does anyone else have similar experience?

I apologize for the lengthy post, but this has me extremely upset with the situation. Being in a public staff position, I feel a bit limited with how vocal I can be. I hope some of you may be able to provide advice or at least make us feel like we're not alone.

Thanks.

The sign industry and business in general have recognized that unbridled regulation of commercial speech not only hurts all involved here, but it also erodes the government tax base, infringes on First Amendment rights, and does a disservice to the public, by restricting commerce.

Planners and gov. officials must take care when writing a sign code. It must be balanced between what the public wants and what the planners think will look good. Most sign codes are unconstitutional.

Over the past 10 years business has started fighting back, because of the abuses of government. The US. Supreme Court worried about the abuse of power by state and local governments have constructed the Hudson Test. Google "Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp v. Public Service Commission of New York".

There are many other law suits over the past 20 yrs. that have led to the Hudson ruling. Justice Powell commented.......when a communication is not misleading., the State retains some authority to regulate. But the State must assert a SUBSTANTIAL interest and the interference with speech must be in PROPORTION to the interest served... Restrictions must be narrowly drawn, and the State lawfully may regulate only to the extent regulation furthers the State's SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST.

If those conditions are not met, the sign code could be overturned and must be rewritten. The plaintiff will be allowed to have his sign anyway, and the State or Local government will have to pay the plaintiffs lawyers.

Free speech is more important than aesthetics so says the Court.

Quote:

Originally posted by RichmondJake

The sign industry is divided into two separate areas. 1. the off premise or (billboard) industry, and 2. the on premise or (general sign industry). I have over 30 years experience in the latter. As distasteful as billboards can be, they do serve a purpose. They communicate to the public. The industry can't continue without public support. And they do have support. A business on the outskirts of town can reach or communicate all around town the message that can be very important to the sale of his products or services. It's called Commercial Speech. It can be ugly or pretty depending on your point of view.

Let's not be naive, the country can be a beautiful place, but where people congregate, you will find business to support the needs of those people. You will also find signs. Commerce can not continue without them.

Read full thread
Login or register to post comments