What Durham residents think about electronic billboards...Letters to editors from the local papers |
|
"Durham would be foolish to believe that electronic billboards are an innovative wave of the future. They are, rather, the last dying breath of a dinosaur industry." Kelly JarrettDurham Letter: Distracting drivers Other cities are banning digital billboards and Durham is thinking about lifting its 25-year billboard ban? As reported in USA Today on March 29, "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. Come on, Durham. We are a national leader in protecting our cityscape from unsightly, distracting billboards. Let's not give up our leadership edge. Don't lift the ban. Meredith Emmett
Letter: Billboards are dumb
Durham teachers and professors take tremendous pleasure and pride in educating young and older minds. Durham boasts about the high percentage of progressive thinkers we graduate via public and private undergraduate schools, North Carolina Central University, Durham Technical College, and Duke University. How is it possible that this same city is even entertaining a proposal to undo Durham's long term billboard ban? Durham has spent a fortune to revitalize its neighborhoods and downtown. Do you really think that new flashing billboards leading to its center are in keeping with the aesthetics we have all paid and worked hard to achieve? Come on! I hope that I won't suffer disappointment and disillusionment, and that I can continue to trust our elected officials to vote against the lifting of the billboard ban. Wendi Gale Winfield
Letter: Keep billboard ban
I remember well my very first drive off of I-40 along 1-85 into Durham. Suddenly I found myself remarking how scenic my drive had suddenly become. I then realized there were nearly no billboards. That first impression was part of what led me to move here (and pay taxes for nearly 13 years now). The billboard industry pays low taxes and contributes visual clutter which makes driving less safe. Changing the current billboard ban is not — in any way — helpful to our city. Please oppose it! Thank you. Marian Place
Letter: Hideous billboards
I am appalled that our local governments would even entertain a proposal to undo Durham's billboard ban. Just when our city is becoming the state's showcase for revitalization, are we really going to consider mucking it up with ugly billboards? Billboard owners pay practically nothing in taxes. They have no employees here. In a poll done for the Durham Convention and Visitors Bureau last year, Durham citizens voted eight to one against lifting the billboard ban. The Durham of the new century should not look like the Durham of 1975. I hope our elected officials will have the good sense to vote against this bad idea. Ned Kennington
Letter: Neighbors say no
Tuesday evening, the Planning Commission will consider a proposal by lobbyists for the billboard industry to relax Durham's ban on billboards. They want bigger, newer, and in some cases, brighter billboards along Durham's major traffic arteries. To this Durham's neighborhoods say "Don't mess with the billboard ban!" Durham banned billboards 20 years ago to eliminate ugly sign clutter and arrest economic decline. The measure had broad citizen and business support. Since then, half of the giant signs have come down and those that remain are on borrowed time. Now that our city's star is rising, the last thing we need to do is spoil it all with an entirely new billboard blight. The industry's proposal targets neighborhoods like East Durham, Crest Street, Duke Park, Northgate Park, Morehead Hill, Duke Homestead, Burch Avenue and Tuscaloosa-Lakewood. These are the places Durham's ordinary folks call home. No citizen who lives near I-85, 15-501, or Chapel Hill Boulevard should have to put up with massive, brightly lit signs towering over his or her home. After hearing from representatives of the billboard industry and considering their proposal, the neighborhoods of Durham's InterNeighborhood Council voted resoundingly against changing Durham's strict billboard rules. Durham citizens agree 9 to 1, according to a recent independent poll. The Herald-Sun agrees. On Tuesday, the Planning Commission should also agree to protect Durham citizens and protect the billboard ban! Tom Miller
Letter: Great argument
In "City Must Keep Ban on Billboards" (April 8), Larry Holt and John Schelp make a persuasive case for opposing electronic billboards. [Copied below.] Our existing ordinance has widespread support among Durham citizens who overwhelmingly do not want the dangerous distractions and blight of electronic billboards lining our streets. Electronic billboards are sources of visual and virtual pollution and not a path toward reducing greenhouse gases; they are distractions to drivers; they will add nothing to Durham's economic base -- no jobs and no significant tax revenues; and should we ever remove them, we must compensate the owners. Finally, while billboard industry officials tout electronic billboards as an advance, the reality is that billboards are the technology of the past century -- blaring blanket messages to a public that does not rely on them for information. Electronic media are transforming advertising through niche marketing. Today people depend on computers, smart phones, and Google for event schedules, entertainment venues, directions, and information about nonprofits, NGOs and government services. Durham would be foolish to believe that electronic billboards are an innovative wave of the future. They are, rather, the last dying breath of a dinosaur industry. I urge Durham officials to respect the wishes of Durham citizens by supporting our current sign ordinance and representing our interests over those of the billboard industry. Kelly Jarrett
Letter: Keep billboard ban for better Durham The day after the InterNeighborhood Council voted to support Durham's current ban on billboards, Fairway Advertising's local rep told a Herald-Sun reporter there wasn't widespread opposition to electronic billboards. He was wrong. 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). It should come as no surprise someone in advertising is trying to sell us a bill of goods. Support for our successful billboard ban is widespread and strong across the community. Seeing all this support, industry is trying to pick off local nonprofits with free PSAs (a common industry tactic). Does anyone really think it's a good idea to get drivers to take their eyes off the road so they can be distracted by ads for cigarette outlets in Burlington -- and PSAs about teenage smoking? 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. For a digital billboard, flashing more than 10,000 ads/day, that's a lot of money taxpayers would have to send to a company in another state. As we head into 2010, one certainly hopes no local official would take such an irresponsible risk with taxpayer money. Keep in mind that the billboard industry lawyers are the same lawyers suing the county on another matter. If industry lawyers are this sue-happy now, think what will happen once they overturn Durham's ban on billboards. John Schelp Letter: Support billboard ban
I support Durham's current ban on new billboards, and I'm writing to urge you to resist the billboard industry's attempt to overturn our ordinance. Please support the current ban in upcoming votes. The last thing we need is big, bright, blinking billboards on I-85, 147, 15-501 and 70. These would look trashy, waste energy, and might very possibly cause safety problems. Most outrageous of all, if Durham wanted to remove an electronic billboard for any reason in the future, Durham taxpayers would have to compensate the owners for lost revenues. When it banned new billboards in 1984, Durham made a statement about community pride and self-determination. The very small amount of money these billboards would add to our tax revenues would be vastly outweighed by the negative message they would send about our community--that we are a bunch of dumb yokels willing to give up important community values, such as aesthetics, for next to nothing. Mike Morris
Letter: Tacky billboards My husband and I recently spent a week in Pigeon Forge, Tenn., which is highly commercialized. The main street through the town is lined with stores, restaurants, hotels, and entertainment venues. There is a constant stream of signs and billboards, but the things that stood out above all else were the electronic billboards, which were so bright that I felt as if my eyes had been assaulted. I was struck by how tacky they looked. I would suggest that before our county officials seriously consider approving digital signs in our area, that they take a good look at the real things and consider how garish and distracting they really are. I am enthusiastic about most new technology, but this is something we are better off without! Ann Rogers Letter: Dangerous billboards
Allowing digital billboards can cost lives. Already, drivers speed along major corridors using cell phones, texting and even using computers. It is natural for colorful, moving lights to draw the eye. That is exactly what an advertiser wants. During this moment of inattention, a lethal crash may occur. Fairway Outdoor Advertising wants more of these attractions along corridors including U.S. 15-501, I-85 and the Durham Freeway. Here, traffic ignores the speed limit, and is ripe for accidents. In addition to ads, advertisers will display public service announcements, again distracting drivers. As a much-much older, but used-to-be-teenaged driver, I know the dangers of distraction on high-speed or even low-speed roads. Georgia's Fairway Outdoor Advertising should not profit by cluttering and threatening our area. Burdette Connell
Letter: No to billboards
The blight and visual litter associated with all billboards, electronic or traditional, is not good for Durham. Durham spent a fortune in the 1980s to clean up its image by removing a good portion of the existing billboards. That process continues, at a slower pace now, with the ordinances in place. Let's continue down that path. We don't need to look like Atlanta or Las Vegas. The lobby for this effort is disingenuous in portraying this change as having a major public benefit. It's all about profit, folks. Profit for a company that doesn't operate out of Durham. Jobs for folks who don't live in Durham. Let's publicly reject this deep-pocketed effort by Fairway Advertising and its representatives who tout that they care about Durham, while at the same time lining their pockets at the expense of our city and its image. Myers Sugg
Letter: Better than billboards
I'm a three year resident of Durham and native of the state of Maine. In Maine, there is a state-wide ban on billboards. You cannot imagine how wonderful it is to drive down an interstate highway without the constant visual assault of huge, brightly colored ads. Names of restaurants, lodging, places of attraction, etc., are instead signaled through smaller blue signs. Because these signs are of consistent size/color/font, they are so much easier and more pleasant to use to get information. The aesthetic benefits of this are immense, particularly in states known for their natural beauty, such as both Maine and North Carolina. Additional environmental benefits include energy savings -- what a waste to light giant advertisements along roads in distracting, flashing colors while the rest of the country discusses how to reduce energy use and find alternative energy sources. I urge Durham residents to support the ban on billboards and preserve both aesthetics and the environment. Lynnette Batt
Letter: Billboard revenue impact questioned Saturday's Letter to the Editor says Durham should overturn the ban on electronic billboards because they'll provide "badly needed revenue." Billboards are taxed as personal property at their value in materials, not based upon their income capitalization. As a result, they pay very little in taxes to Durham. According to the planning department, in 2008 Fairway paid just $2,605.60 in taxes to Durham County. Many single-family homeowners paid more (each) in property taxes. And, a common industry tactic for undermining public opposition to electronic billboards is to offer free billboard space to non-profits. This explains why you're suddenly seeing non-profit billboards around town. The irony in this tactic is that the ads on electronic billboards are constantly changing. So, we can see PSAs for anti-drinking programs followed by ads for Bud Lite and Seagram's Vodka. And, please reject the tired argument that the new billboards will be "better looking" (than the billboards the industry has allowed to deteriorate). Not everyone thinks a big, bright electronic billboard, above the tree tops on tall metal mono-poles, flashing more than 10,000 ads/day, is "better looking." To counter the misinformation coming from the billboard industry, folks in the community have created a Web site, http://supportdurhambillboardban.com/ John Schelp Letter: Stand questioned In his April 25 letter, Mike Miller suggests electronic billboards as a solution to an advertising "supply and demand issue." I presume he means too many advertisements, not enough billboard space. I respectfully suggest this is an "issue" only for advertisers and the billboard industry. I don't feel advertising deprived or wish I saw more billboard advertisements along our streets and highways, and I don't sense such deprivation among my friends. There is no independent groundswell of citizen activism calling for more billboard advertising. A couple of points are worth noting: Miller is business development coordinator for the Durham Bulls. His job is to promote good relations with businesses and to reach large audiences through advertising. The Durham Bulls are owned by Capitol Broadcasting, is headed by Jim Goodman. A handwritten note on a Chamber of Commerce memo about Fairway Advertising's proposal to overturn Durham's current billboard regulations, recently published in an Independent Weekly blog (link downloads pdf), refers to the "Fairway & Goodman plan." I doubt I'm the only Durham citizen curious how Fairway's proposal came to be known to the Chamber as the "Fairway & Goodman plan" or the only reader wondering if there's a connection between Miller's support for electronic billboards, his development position with the Bulls, and the Bull's relation to Goodman and Capitol Broadcasting. Finally, Fairway's property tax contribution to Durham is about $2,500 -- for ALL its current billboards. Fairway would likely incur a smaller property tax assessment for fewer electronic billboards while exponentially increasing its profits. Kelly Jarrett Letter: Beware of billboards Who are they who want more billboards? Are they people who drive through the countryside looking for billboards, wanting to avoid seeing plants, animals, aged buildings, hills, towering mountains, quiet ponds? Perhaps there are those who pray for junk mail, surf for commercials, save flyers left on their windshields, await telephone solicitations and like all the computer 'cookies' and pop-ups. And read a magazine from cover to cover, front to back, not missing an ad. Their favorite book -- the yellow pages? My hunch is that those who advocate for in-the-face, unavoidable advertisements are those who profit politically and/or monetarily. It is in a business's self-interest to have access to consumers, day and night, to play upon our weaknesses and fears to create and influence our money spending. Marketing and manipulation corrupts supply and demand. Guidelines exist for shopping area designs for aesthetic reasons. Regulations also need to preserve and enhance beautiful the vistas of our state. Digital billboards! Billboards are not in the public interest. They are carefully designed to brainwash potential customers. Our infrastructure (poor neighborhoods, roads, bridges, schools, public buildings, playgrounds) needs attention now. Beware: We are being encouraged by business to give them our money. Claire F. Jentsch Letter: Don't get distracted I'm disturbed by Rosemarie Kitchin's March 22 letter supporting electronic billboards on Durham highways. Kitchin likes "seeing ... messages that deliver good information to a target audience." When I'm driving, I like to watch the road. I want the drivers going 70 mph around me to watch the road too. There are plenty of other venues for ads and information without resorting to more visual clutter on Durham's highways. And I don't like being a "target." Did Kitchin learn to talk about people as targets at the "renowned journalism school" she gives as qualification for her opinion? Does it bother her that the billboard company peddling its signs sees us as targets? Did her journalism professors talk about advertising's infiltration of every aspect of modern culture -- so that we don't even realize we're being targeted but instead help the process along? Kitchin says the electronic billboard she saw recently didn't hurt her eyes. What about the studies that show these billboards compromise night vision for people? What about seniors and others whose eyes are sensitive to bright light? They drive too. Kitchin says travelers (targets?) will "come spend money in Durham" when they see these billboards. Is getting money for Durham a worthy motive for allowing electronic billboards -- which have been shown in numerous studies to distract drivers and increase accidents? How low will we go? Let's hold ourselves and our city to higher standards. Frances Kerr Letter: Neighborhood group rejects billboard spin In a stinging defeat for the billboard industry, the InterNeighborhood Council voted last week to support Durham's current ban on billboards. Billboard industry lobbyists have desperately tried to spin their defeat another way. But the fact remains that the billboard industry could only find two neighborhood representatives in all of Durham to support their position. Two. Many thanks to all those who took the time to understand the issue and vote against the billboard industry's attempt to put up big, bright billboards -- blinking more than 10,000 ads/day. If you want to help stop the billboard industry from sticking electronic billboards near our homes, schools and parks, check out our new website at supportdurhambillboardban.com John Schelp Letter: Billboards too bright I just returned from Atlanta, where driving along the highway, I was disturbed by how bright the electronic billboards were. As they changed from one ad to the other, the movement of the colors and images was distracting, and the brightness was enough to make me squint. And this was in broad daylight! I cannot imagine how disturbing these electronic billboards must be at night. I would hate to see electronic billboards come to Durham. As a community that cares about the safety of drivers along busy streets, we do not need to let billboard companies put more signs up. Aidil Collins Letter: Keep billboard ban The billboard industry is trying to overturn the current ban on electronic billboards in Durham. This move would open the door and allow big, bright, blinking billboards on I-85, 147, 15-501 and 70. Overturning the ban would allow large, lit billboards near homes, schools, parks and places of worship. I-85 is dangerous enough already without added distractions to drivers. There is no compelling reason to overturn Durham's ban on electronic billboards. Let's never forget the words of Willie Lovett: Who will benefit ... who will pay? Jackie Brown Letter: Sink this scam I hope the City Council will not be duped into accepting the dangerous and destructive plan to allow electronic billboards. If it goes through, there will undoubtedly be more accidents. Not every driver has an equal ability to focus on the road when giant bright lights with changing images are right before them. We have many aging drivers on the road. Why increase the chances that one of them might run into you? Also, young new drivers may be at greater risk for distraction. This electronic billboard idea is bad for many reasons: environmental, financial (if we ever wanted to remove them, Durham taxpayers would have to compensate for lost revenue to the advertisers; that locks us in), general eyesore near residential neighborhoods. But I think traffic safety is the no-brainer that ought to sink this scam. Susan Baylies Letter: Intrusion unneeded As has been eloquently stated by many of my fellow Durham citizens, there are a multitude of safety, environmental and beauty concerns about the introduction of electronic billboards to Durham. I saw one last night outside of Greensboro and, yes, it distracted me the amount that it was designed to do. I do not remember the multiple things being advertised while I looked at the billboard instead of the road. I do remember feeling quite certain they had no redeeming qualities. My wonderful Durham neighborhood does not need the intrusion of these ugly things. Especially in this struggling economy, my Burch Avenue neighborhood does need help in improving the safety, environment and beauty of our surroundings. Our residents need assistance in improving their homes. Allowing electronic billboards will ultimately make it harder for us to fund the assistance programs we need. No to electronic billboards in Durham (and everywhere else). Sue Unruhe Letter: Tacky signs Regarding the interest in adopting large, lit billboards along I-85, U.S. 15-501 and 70 and N.C. 147, I truly hope that the Durham Chamber of Commerce will reconsider. I have seen cities where this is allowed, and the advertising is gaudy and an eyesore. As a citizen who has chosen not to watch television, particularly because of advertisements, nor do I listen to radio stations with advertisements, I find it annoying enough that advertising agencies find ways to reach me anyhow. They simply cannot accept that a person should be able to go out for a walk or a drive and have a moment's peace without advertising. I accept that there will be some billboards, but why must we now make them bright and electronic? Please, Durham already has enough light pollution. Let's work at beautifying Durham and creating a city where people are still able to enjoy some semblance of nature. Let's build revenue through our independently owned restaurants and stores. Let's make Durham desirable by promoting a range of educational options and great schools. Build bike lanes and sidewalks and gardens. People will want to be here. They already do, and we don't need tacky signs to make money! Rebecca Slaughter Letter: No lighted billboards I object to electronic billboards and also to adding billboards in Durham County for the following reasons: * Aesthetic. Durham has too many major entrances to the city that are unattractive -- we should not make them worse. * Energy. Even if low energy lights were used, adding an unnecessary use of electricity would be in opposition to our city's carbon reduction plan, to Gov. Beverly Perdue's ideas for a greener North Carolina, and to President-elect Obama's energy policies. * Light pollution. We have a great number of bright lights at night which are distracting and which hide the night sky -- and light pollution is a matter of concern for many of us. Cavett French Letter: Durham can't afford electronic billboards 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 Lettter: This isn't Vegas Electronic billboards? Who needs this? Not Durham, the "foodiest" city in the country, according to Bon Appetit. The best place to live and work, say several surveys -- a wonderful cultural crystal palace, the largest performing arts center filled with patrons. So we now are considering looking and acting like Las Vegas? Please say no! Sally Schauman Letter: Electronic billboards will be dangerous Driving safety is a great concern of mine, whether on back roads, city traffic, in parking lots or on highways. There are special problems to look out for in each of those locations, but one key element in driving safety is to be on the alert for unexpected movement or potential movement. Are deer crossing the road at night? Is there a pack of cars approaching from behind, traveling 20 miles or more over the speed limit? Is someone moving out from the parking space directly behind mine as I attempt to back out? Is a bicyclist going to swerve from the sidewalk into the street? Paying attention to "background" visual components while driving is a major factor in avoiding accidents. Electronic billboards would add visual disturbance to the driving landscape while making driving more hazardous. A non-electronic billboard may attract the driver's attention only when there are few driving distractions, but an electronic billboard (or a vehicle with changing electronic signage) is intended to be distracting. In the interest of safety, I urge Durham not to allow electronic signs. Debbie Rubin Williams Letter: No bright billboards Old West Durham has everything that is good about a neighborhood. Everyone is welcome. There is a spirit of kindness and giving. Adults and kids walk together through the neighborhood, kids ride their bikes, and if you need help, there is always someone to lend a hand. We all worked hard to make the neighborhood beautiful, we fixed up our houses, and planted trees and flowers. We share flowers from our garden and figs from our tree. There is a red-tailed hawk that lives our oak tree and an owl that sometimes visits at night. It makes me so sad to hear that the billboard industry is trying to place bright flashing billboards near our Old West Durham neighborhood. This will destroy the peacefulness of our neighborhood at night. We have worked hard to make our neighborhood a good place for children and families. We don't need flashing lights in our bedrooms and the bedrooms of our children. Victoria Seewaldt Letter: Dangerous idea The Durham Freeway is dangerous enough already without added distractions. The proposal to install electronic billboards to the freeway is the worst idea yet and will only add to the mounting car accidents we now experience. We need fewer advertisements, not more. Barbara Taylor Question of the Week: What do you think about the proposed digital billboards? The following are representative responses posted on www.heraldsun.com to the Sunday Perspectives Question of the Week: "What do you think about the proposed digital billboards?" Say no to bright, digital billboards This does not seem to be in the best interest for our community. I like Durham descriptives such as grit, diversity, city of neighborhoods. Do we really need to know what the hottest Vodka brand is or where the best car deal can be had while driving down our streets? I vote NO to propaganda and bright, digital billboards. - Long time resident and neighbor. Letter: Blinding billboards Electronic lighting of billboards on highways will be absolutely blinding to people who have some night blindness, problems looking at certain kinds of oncoming headlights and confusing to anyone who has a shred of dyslexia. Anyone who remembers driving I-40 through Durham during major road construction would affirm that navigating the blaze of flashing bright lights was difficult and confusing. For me it was scary as could be. We are already forced to look at too much advertising. It is not worth the sacrifice of anyone's life. The experts need to step up and say no to electronic advertising on highways because it is dangerous. Kris Christensen Letter: Bad ads for Durham Let us consider this idea of electronic billboards. On the "con" side are the following: 1) They are bad for the environment with staggering amounts of carbon pollution, plus light pollution. 2) They are distracting at best and dangerous at worst for drivers. 3) They would provide revenue to yet another distant corporation while giving nothing in return (have we not had enough of such corporate greed?). 4) They would cost Durham greatly if we decide later that we want to remove them. 5) They are tasteless, garish and annoying. On the "pro" side? I am at a loss to find one thing to recommend them. We know this is a bad idea. Please do not change Durham's ordinance to permit electronic billboards here. Julia Borbely-Brown Letter: Electronic billboards bad ads for Durham Durham is a city of distinctive neighborhoods. I have the good fortune to live in one, Morehead Hill, a charming suburb established at the beginning of the last century. Unhappily, if lobbyists for the billboard industry are successful, motorists coming off the Durham Freeway to Morehead Hill will be greeted by the considerably less charming sight of enormous, electronic signs, looming over the highway, garishly lit and impossible to ignore. If the signs were merely tacky and gross it would be bad enough, but the most serious problem with the billboards is not aesthetic. The very quality that makes them desirable as advertising -- people can't avoid looking at them -- makes them dangerous. The captive audience consists of motorists driving down busy freeways who would be well-advised to keep their eyes on the road. As if to guarantee distractions, the flashing messages change every few seconds. The billboards are also unhealthy for the environment. The conservationist group Scenic America estimates that just one sign has a "carbon footprint" equivalent to 13 houses. The costs of electronic signs will be borne locally. As for benefits, the company promoting the billboards is based, not in the Triangle or even in North Carolina, but in Georgia. Many people have worked hard to improve Durham's image. Highway billboards would be a bad advertisement for Durham. Lynn Kohn Letter: No billboard blight I am a home owner on American Drive in Durham. North Carolina is where I was born; I have always been proud of the state's concern for roads and nature. The last thing we need is to have billboards as a blight on the beautiful Duke Forest setting. The woods and trails and trees are reasons for buying and living in this lovely area. Please don't bring in what other states are doing away with. Let's keep Durham a leader and not succumb to billboard lobbying. Whatever needs to be done to prevent it, I will be there. Joyce Harvey Letter: Billboard firm tries to buy support Facing strong community opposition, the billboard industry has resorted to trying to buy local political support -- by handing out advertising space rent-free and making campaign contributions. Billboard lawyers can deny this is a quid pro quo, but it definitely walks like a duck. The Georgia company pushing this mess gave Downtown Durham, Inc. thousands of dollars of rent-free advertising space on a billboard -- shortly before the DDI board voted on the measure. The same company sent monetary contributions to elected officials -- before their vote on whether to allow electronic billboards in Durham. Billboard industry representatives are now approaching City Council members and asking them to name their favorite non-profits. So when the industry tries to get approval from the Council, they can show a list of non-profits receiving "free" advertising. Durham citizens are speaking out to oppose the billboard industry's move to stick electronic billboards near our homes, schools, churches and parks. We don't want to walk along New Hope Creek and see a big, bright billboard for used cars, face distractions on our highways by lit ads for double cheeseburgers or visit the new DPAC or the Hayti Heritage Center and see flashing billboards for outlet malls in Burlington. And, anyone calling for a compromise is really saying, "let's gut Durham's ordinance and allow digital billboards flashing ads 24/7." Thank you, Herald-Sun, for exposing this latest move by the billboard industry. This sneaky attempt to buy support speaks volumes. John Schelp Letter: Send a message Fairway Outdoor Advertising, the Georgia firm that wants to light up Durham with digital billboards, has given the mayor and each of the members of the Durham City Council substantial campaign contributions. In an effort to cinch the deal, Fairway also gave $28,000 in free advertising to the movers and shakers behind the prepared food tax that proved so popular with Durham voters. From the tenor of the recent letters to the editor, it seems that digital billboards are even less popular than the food tax. Fairway's lawyer sniffs at any suggestion of impropriety, denying any quid pro quo. This is a rare opportunity for our politicians to prove that they cannot be bought, that powerful Georgia companies may supply the quid but our pols will never, never return the quo. Steve Bocckino Letter: No to billboards It is time for our elected officials to speak up and do what we've elected them to do: Represent the citizens who are saying loudly and clearly, "No electronic billboards." Your recent articles exposing Fairway Advertising's efforts to curry support for electronic billboards among local officials and civic leaders suggest some reasons for their silence. You have reported Fairway has made financial contributions to local elected officials, in-kind contributions to Downtown Durham Inc, and contacted city and county staff to solicit their support for electronic billboards. The silence of those who have received contributions from Fairway Advertising is deafening. Their constituents are waiting to hear from them. You have printed many letters from Durham citizens opposed to electronic billboards because they are a dangerous distraction for drivers, sources of light pollution, have huge carbon footprints and would be hugely expensive for us to get rid of. I share these concerns. I cannot recall a single letter supporting electronic billboards. Durham citizens seem to be speaking loudly and clearly: We do not want electronic billboards in Durham. Fairway Advertising and the billboard industry want to change our ordinances so they can clutter our highways, streets and neighborhoods with electronic billboards. If you oppose electronic billboards, write the City Council, country commissioners and Mayor Bill Bell and encourage them to put an end to Fairway's efforts. Betty M. Greene Letter: Lighted billboards 'tawdry visual litter' Lit, flashing billboards should not be permitted in our community. Please urge our elected officials to vote against these dangerous nuisances. I have sent the following to the Durham City Council and the Board of County Commissioners, and hope others will also write. "Please do not allow those awful lighted, flashing billboards in Durham City or County. Regular billboards are ugly enough; if you want to do something about billboards, figure out a way to rid us of them altogether. In addition to upping the uglification factor enormously, these new ones are a hazard to drivers. The human eye is designed to respond to sudden motion in the environment ... so it is impossible not to look. Anything that distracts drivers ... is inherently dangerous and should not be permitted. I know the first time I saw one (right outside of Richmond ...), I nearly wrecked with another driver who was also looking at the ... billboard. "They are also unbelievably bright, and at night compound the night vision problems of older drivers. I don't even want to think about how horrible it would be to have one within sight of any human habitation or work place. If you want to see how fast they turn a highway into a tawdry stretch of visual litter, just take a ride to Charlotte. ... the result is not pretty." Kate Dobbs Ariail Letter: Billboards are ugly I ask Durham leaders, please do not allow any electronic billboards along our roads. This visual litter is ugly, distracting and creates unsafe conditions. I hope this issue will be quickly put down, so work can begin on tackling overdue problems that prevent Durham from being a shining first-class city, such as: * Re-surfacing our roads in substantial quantities. * Turning bike and pedestrian plans' recommendations into realities. * Getting a linear east-west bus connector route running from the west end of Main Street to East Durham with 12 minute cycles. * Installing benches and shelters at bus stops. With the stimulus plan and new NCDOT leaders coming around, is the city getting projects online to address our maintenance backlog and long-suffering transportation infrastructure deficiencies? Please fix the Downtown Loop and the mess of one-way, north/south freeways (Gregson, Duke, Roxboro, Mangum) running through the center of town that makes getting around illogical for visitors and frustrating for residents. Now that the state DOT isn't doing maintenance, there's no reason for the city not to take over these roads and return them to two-way travel. Back to the distracting matter at hand, our leaders should vote no on any electronic billboards and help prevent turning Durham into a low-class, illuminated highway pit stop. I don't want to see digital billboards -- no matter how many freebie messages Fairway devotes to non-profits. Dave Wofford
I'm not sure I understand why some people say we don't know what Fairway's proposal is. They have put it in writing to the city and county twice and they explained it to us at the last Inter Neighborhood Council meeting. Assuming that they meant what they said, I think I understand their proposal very clearly. ... Based on what I know, which is what Fairway has told us, I oppose their proposal to change Durham's zoning ordinances to allow them and their competitors to upgrade their billboards. I oppose the proposal on all its points. Remember, under the proposal, some signs would change to the flashing variety, some would be moved, and others, pole-mounted, would be put on steel masts. All of the billboards in question are nonconforming uses and they shouldn't be upgraded. It isn't fair, and it is contrary to Durham's sound and successful policy. There is no public need for billboards and there is no compelling reason to treat this industry better than we treat any other citizen who could make more money if he could get special treatment under the zoning ordinances. Tom Miller Letter: No to billboards From my reading of the issues regarding digital billboards, I can find no benefit for the residents of Durham city or county. They are a hazard to drivers, worse than cell phones. The eye can't resist looking at a bright, moving, lighted object. They increase light pollution. To the boards that will make the decision, please vote against placing any of the digital billboards in the city or the county. G. Bennett Myers Letter: Lighted billboards would be distraction Regarding your editorial of Feb. 2, "Let's allow a few digital billboards." I must respectfully disagree with your reasoning. The last thing we need on our roads and highways is another distraction, and that is exactly what it would be -- a distraction! It's already frightening enough for drivers to not fully concentrate on what should be their main priority, which is paying attention to their driving, and not talking on cellphones, eating, drinking and other matters that take away from driving. It's bad enough that the public has to deal with speeders, tail-gaters, red-light runners and lane-changers. Whoever is to make the final decision on this matter, please do not allow this to happen. Jerry Clem | |