What Durham residents think about electronic billboards...Op-Eds from the local papers |
|
Column: new website supports Durham's current ban on e-billboards 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)...
Please visit our new website. Electronic billboards are a bad idea for Durham. Together, we can stop the billboard industry. Column: Not enough lipstick in the Carolinas for this bad idea A Georgia billboard company is asking Durham to open the door to allow electronic billboards along roadways that flash new ad images every few seconds. They look like huge flat screen TVs on a stick -- bright lights that change messages every 4-5 seconds. The advantage of billboards for advertisers -- according to Advertising Age, an industry publication -- is that billboards are: "not an on-demand medium. You can't choose to see it, you have to see it." 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. Scenic America calls electronic billboards unsafe, unsightly and un-environmental at any speed. Billboards are effective only if you look at them, they are designed to draw your eyes off the traffic in front of you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found that anything that distracts a driver for more than two seconds from the road ahead, "significantly increases the chances of crashes and near crashes." Scenic America estimates that it takes up to 5 seconds to understand the billboard messages. (Source: www.scenic.org) The ever-changing images on electronic billboard cause drivers eyes to linger especially long, as viewers wait to see what's next. The billboards are especially eye-catching at night, when they are the brightest objects in the driver's field of vision. Designed to deliberately distract drivers, these electronic billboards create an unsafe environment on the road -- even for motorists who try to ignore them. Not surprisingly, the billboard industry takes exception to these findings and has sponsored its own special studies insisting that flashing billboards are perfectly safe. But, in an embarrassing setback for the billboard companies, the Wachtel Report concluded that the industry's studies were not supported by scientific data: "Having completed this peer review, it is our opinion that acceptance of these [industry] reports as valid is inappropriate and unsupported by scientific data, and that ordinance or code changes based on their findings is ill advised." If safety concerns alone aren't enough to make us reject electronic billboards, there are environmental concerns and risks for Durham taxpayers. Scenic America estimates that one electronic billboard equals 108 tons/year of carbon dioxide. The carbon footprint of one of these billboards is equal to that of 13 houses. When we're all switching our home lamps to florescent bulbs to reduce our individual carbon footprints, why would we want to increase the carbon footprint of our advertising billboards? The Highway Beautification Act requires cash compensation if billboards ever have to be moved or taken down. Scenic America reports that "compensation is usually defined as the value of the structure, plus lost revenue, making each digital sign worth millions of dollars." Because electronic billboard images do change, multiple companies can advertise on them simultaneously, significantly increasing their revenue value. 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. It was therefore surprising to learn that the sitting INC leadership placed a presentation by the billboard industry on its Agenda -- without including a speaker who represents an opposing perspective or who could provide historical background on current zoning restrictions on billboards. As a result, this newspaper wrote an article that basically reported what the billboard industry said. After wading through the first ten paragraphs telling us what billboard companies want, we FINALLY get to hear from a Durham resident who calls the idea "awful for our community." Constructing more billboards in Durham, electronic or otherwise, is not a citizen or neighborhood initiated issue. It was placed on the agenda because it serves the interests of the billboard industry and advertisers. Cluttering our roads and neighborhoods with brightly lit, attention-grabbing billboards is a terrible idea. We shouldn't let the industry try to change our ordinances to line the pockets of out-of-state businesses with no interest in Durham and in the quality of life of its citizens. Durham has been receiving lots of national recognition in national publications for the things that make it such a vibrant and engaged community -- our restaurants and "foodie" culture, our revitalized in-town neighborhoods, the arts, and our local shops. The diversity of our economy and community is what makes Durham a desirable place to live. The national ratings Durham got as one of the best places to live did not include brightly lit billboards flashing ads 24/7 along heavily traveled stretches of the Durham Freeway, 15-501, I-85, and U.S. 70 to the Wake County line. There's not enough lipstick in the Carolinas to fix these flashy pigs on a stick. We all should strongly oppose this self-serving move by the billboard industry. | |