Richland County is considering allowing new signs
An electronic billboard displays its message near the intersection of Huger and Blossom streets in Columbia.
About 50 people showed up for a debate Thursday on the latest technology in billboards — screens that change messages every six seconds and stay lit 24 hours a day.
The forum featured dueling studies, statistics, psychology and a video of Interstate 26, doctored to demonstrate how it would look with a cascade of flashing signs.
While much of the talk was about the potential hazards for drivers, Columbia resident Basil Garzia wasn’t swayed by the data.
“It’s gaudy,” he said.
“And my gut says that there’s a safety issue, too.”
Already, billboard companies have been allowed to erect the electric signs in Columbia and Lexington County. Now, they are seeking permission to expand to unincorporated Richland County.
A public hearing has been set for 7 p.m. Sept. 25 by the County Council.
The tension is heightened for a couple of reasons:
• Richland County has banned new billboards since 2001. And while allowing digital billboards wouldn’t add new sites, it would extend the life of the signs.
County law is designed to phase out signs over time as they age.
Lamar Advertising’s Scott Shockley said the company has 180 billboards in the county.
• Lamar has put up five digital billboards along city streets in the past year, allowing people to judge for themselves whether they’re attractive or distracting.
Most who attended the forum, held at the library and sponsored by the Richland County Appearance Commission, seemed anti-billboard.
“It’s about high time for us to realize that we have a law on the books, and here come businesses that want to circumvent just because of new technology,” city resident Henry Hopkins said.
Added Virginia Washington, who lives in Lower Richland: “Having lived in New York City and having visited Times Square, it’s mind-boggling. So imagine that here in Columbia.”
John Hardee, a former state highway commissioner who works for Lamar Advertising, said he was surprised at the turnout.
“Shows to me there’s not a lot of concern,” he said.
A new traffic study done for the billboard industry shows the digital billboards don’t affect accident rates, said Michael W. Tantala, an engineer with a consulting firm in Philadelphia.
Jerry A. Wachtel, who has studied driver safety for 30 years, said the jury’s still out. But, digital billboards make drivers look away from the road for unsafe periods of time, he said.
Wachtel said driver distraction is the single greatest factor in car crashes.
Van Kornegay, with Citizens for Scenic South Carolina, said the issue is that billboards are the only advertising people simply can’t avoid.
“We cannot change the channel. We cannot turn the volume down. We cannot cancel our subscriptions. We have to watch.”
Source: The State --By DAWN HINSHAW
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Compromise could solve city billboard lawsuit
Not that it should back down on enforcing city laws, but Murfreesboro needs to revisit its sign ordinance regarding electronic messaging signs.
We believe the City Council can find a way to allow the technology of today's billboards without letting the city turn into another Las Vegas.
Lamar Advertising of Tennessee filed suit against Murfreesboro Aug. 22 claiming the city wrongfully revoked its permit for the Old Fort Parkway billboard that changes advertisements every eight seconds.
Murfreesboro has an ordinance passed this year prohibiting all electronic messaging signs and a long-standing law that prohibits flashing signs for commercial purposes.
We fail to see, though, how the billboard near DoubleTree Hotel and Starbucks injures the city of Murfreesboro and its residents. The technology is here and the signs enable more than one company to advertise at once. Whether the sign looks good is typically in the eye of the beholder, but make no mistake, this is the type of sign that is being seen across the country.
So why is it being rejected in Murfreesboro? Because the sign ordinance is too rigid. The city also revoked the sign permits of two convenience stores that were using lighted signs to advertise the price of gas, even though they didn't flash, blink or change every eight seconds. The sign stayed up at one of those stores after the Board of Zoning Appeals allowed it on a technicality.
The BZA rejected Lamar's arguments, however, and now the city is in the midst of another lawsuit over its sign ordinance. In the 1990s, Murfreesboro lost a court battle when it exempted American flags from size restrictions. Eventually, the courts found that all flags should be restricted and the city forced Goo-Goo car wash to remove a huge flag from its new business last month.
The City Council, however, is considering allowing larger flag displays of 150 square feet on 50-foot poles. If the city can bend on that part of the ordinance, why not on the flashing billboard section?
Officials made the right move when they heard the cries of residents who wanted a larger display for U.S. flags. They should also compromise on these types of electronic messaging signs, possibly by writing the ordinance so that messages could change only every 15 seconds, in order not to distract motorists.
Lamar's argument will be difficult to beat in court because the company claims it had a valid permit approved by a city sign inspector in November 2006 after the sign went up.
Of course, it's impossible to predict how the courts will rule. Who would have thought the U.S. flag could be categorized as a sign?
But if the city of Murfreesboro can limit the size of a flag, then make changes based on public opinion, it can find a way to meet the business world half-way on flashing signs, without allow the landscape to look like a strip of casinos.
Source: The Daily News Journal
We believe the City Council can find a way to allow the technology of today's billboards without letting the city turn into another Las Vegas.
Lamar Advertising of Tennessee filed suit against Murfreesboro Aug. 22 claiming the city wrongfully revoked its permit for the Old Fort Parkway billboard that changes advertisements every eight seconds.
Murfreesboro has an ordinance passed this year prohibiting all electronic messaging signs and a long-standing law that prohibits flashing signs for commercial purposes.
We fail to see, though, how the billboard near DoubleTree Hotel and Starbucks injures the city of Murfreesboro and its residents. The technology is here and the signs enable more than one company to advertise at once. Whether the sign looks good is typically in the eye of the beholder, but make no mistake, this is the type of sign that is being seen across the country.
So why is it being rejected in Murfreesboro? Because the sign ordinance is too rigid. The city also revoked the sign permits of two convenience stores that were using lighted signs to advertise the price of gas, even though they didn't flash, blink or change every eight seconds. The sign stayed up at one of those stores after the Board of Zoning Appeals allowed it on a technicality.
The BZA rejected Lamar's arguments, however, and now the city is in the midst of another lawsuit over its sign ordinance. In the 1990s, Murfreesboro lost a court battle when it exempted American flags from size restrictions. Eventually, the courts found that all flags should be restricted and the city forced Goo-Goo car wash to remove a huge flag from its new business last month.
The City Council, however, is considering allowing larger flag displays of 150 square feet on 50-foot poles. If the city can bend on that part of the ordinance, why not on the flashing billboard section?
Officials made the right move when they heard the cries of residents who wanted a larger display for U.S. flags. They should also compromise on these types of electronic messaging signs, possibly by writing the ordinance so that messages could change only every 15 seconds, in order not to distract motorists.
Lamar's argument will be difficult to beat in court because the company claims it had a valid permit approved by a city sign inspector in November 2006 after the sign went up.
Of course, it's impossible to predict how the courts will rule. Who would have thought the U.S. flag could be categorized as a sign?
But if the city of Murfreesboro can limit the size of a flag, then make changes based on public opinion, it can find a way to meet the business world half-way on flashing signs, without allow the landscape to look like a strip of casinos.
Source: The Daily News Journal
Unfair Lawsuit in Lafayette, La.
In other business Tuesday, the council is scheduled to go into executive session to discuss a lawsuit brought against the city-parish by a billboard company.
Bass Ltd., is arguing that the city unfairly approved permits that allowed Lamar Advertising to convert several billboards to digital format.
When Bass made a similar request, the Department of Planning, Zoning and Codes did not approve the application, saying it had decided to take a look at the ordinance that governs billboards.
The issue was set for a hearing Oct. 8 before 15th Judicial District Judge Kristian Earles, although attorneys for Bass have said they’ll request an earlier hearing.
The council meets at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday in City Hall on University Avenue.
Source: Advocate Acadiana bureau Lafayette, La.
Bass Ltd., is arguing that the city unfairly approved permits that allowed Lamar Advertising to convert several billboards to digital format.
When Bass made a similar request, the Department of Planning, Zoning and Codes did not approve the application, saying it had decided to take a look at the ordinance that governs billboards.
The issue was set for a hearing Oct. 8 before 15th Judicial District Judge Kristian Earles, although attorneys for Bass have said they’ll request an earlier hearing.
The council meets at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday in City Hall on University Avenue.
Source: Advocate Acadiana bureau Lafayette, La.
S.A. board's vote to regulate digital billboards at odds with Clear Channel's plan
Clear Channel Outdoor's effort to change state and city codes to regulate digital billboards has hit a snag.
San Antonio's electrical supervisory board agreed Monday to recommend a city ordinance to regulate the light-emitting diode signs, or LEDs, but suggested capping permits to 10 for the first year and banning their use on older billboards that are exempt from current restrictions.
That could crimp Clear Channel's plan to put up 150 of the digital signs and, based on a trade-out requirement in the proposed city rules, take down 600 older billboards that are mostly in neighborhoods inside Loop 410.
That's because many of the most lucrative billboards are on sections of major roads and freeways designated as scenic corridors, which forbid new signs that aren't part of a business. So the existing signs in those prime areas are grandfathered and therefore exempt from the rules.
Size, height and spacing requirements also affect what's grandfathered, but city and Clear Channel officials say the rules are murky.
Attorney Frank Burney, representing Clear Channel, warned the electrical board that lawyers could end up haggling, billboard by billboard, on just what is grandfathered.
"I'll tell you, if you go with that, it'll be a retirement fund for lawyers," he said.
The board disagreed, and its recommendation now heads to the City Council. Staff officials said they don't know when the council will consider the proposed ordinance.
The billboard industry's draw to digital signs includes the ability to remotely switch messages half a dozen times a minute or thousands of times a day.
The electrical board recommended that images not move, be displayed at least 10 seconds each and be switched within a second. There would also be limits on brightness and a trade-out to take down three to 19 old billboards for each digital sign.
Burney and three Clear Channel officials were among 17 people who spoke at a public hearing before the board vote.
Ten speakers opposed the ordinance, saying the lighted signs would clutter the highways and distract drivers.
"A message that changes every eight seconds is designed to distract you," said Larry Clark of the River Road Neighborhood Association, one of several people speaking for neighborhood groups.
Marcie Ince of the San Antonio Conservation Society and Kathleen Trenchard of Scenic San Antonio asked the board to wait until a Federal Highway Administration study is finished to determine what risks digital signs could pose to drivers.
The study is scheduled to start next year and finish by the end of 2009, administration spokesman Doug Hecox said.
Meanwhile, the Texas Transportation Commission proposed similar rules last month for state roads within cities and will hold a hearing Nov. 28.
Last year, the Texas Department of Transportation began an effort to rework a federal-state agreement to allow the digital signs. The TxDOT attorney overseeing the initiative, Timothy Anderson, has since joined Clear Channel and spoke at Monday's hearing.
Source: Patrick Driscoll -Express-News
San Antonio's electrical supervisory board agreed Monday to recommend a city ordinance to regulate the light-emitting diode signs, or LEDs, but suggested capping permits to 10 for the first year and banning their use on older billboards that are exempt from current restrictions.
That could crimp Clear Channel's plan to put up 150 of the digital signs and, based on a trade-out requirement in the proposed city rules, take down 600 older billboards that are mostly in neighborhoods inside Loop 410.
That's because many of the most lucrative billboards are on sections of major roads and freeways designated as scenic corridors, which forbid new signs that aren't part of a business. So the existing signs in those prime areas are grandfathered and therefore exempt from the rules.
Size, height and spacing requirements also affect what's grandfathered, but city and Clear Channel officials say the rules are murky.
Attorney Frank Burney, representing Clear Channel, warned the electrical board that lawyers could end up haggling, billboard by billboard, on just what is grandfathered.
"I'll tell you, if you go with that, it'll be a retirement fund for lawyers," he said.
The board disagreed, and its recommendation now heads to the City Council. Staff officials said they don't know when the council will consider the proposed ordinance.
The billboard industry's draw to digital signs includes the ability to remotely switch messages half a dozen times a minute or thousands of times a day.
The electrical board recommended that images not move, be displayed at least 10 seconds each and be switched within a second. There would also be limits on brightness and a trade-out to take down three to 19 old billboards for each digital sign.
Burney and three Clear Channel officials were among 17 people who spoke at a public hearing before the board vote.
Ten speakers opposed the ordinance, saying the lighted signs would clutter the highways and distract drivers.
"A message that changes every eight seconds is designed to distract you," said Larry Clark of the River Road Neighborhood Association, one of several people speaking for neighborhood groups.
Marcie Ince of the San Antonio Conservation Society and Kathleen Trenchard of Scenic San Antonio asked the board to wait until a Federal Highway Administration study is finished to determine what risks digital signs could pose to drivers.
The study is scheduled to start next year and finish by the end of 2009, administration spokesman Doug Hecox said.
Meanwhile, the Texas Transportation Commission proposed similar rules last month for state roads within cities and will hold a hearing Nov. 28.
Last year, the Texas Department of Transportation began an effort to rework a federal-state agreement to allow the digital signs. The TxDOT attorney overseeing the initiative, Timothy Anderson, has since joined Clear Channel and spoke at Monday's hearing.
Source: Patrick Driscoll -Express-News
Digital images on billboards catch driver's attention
A new billboard in Peoria may have caught your eye recently.
The L.E.D. digital billboard is on the corner of War Memorial Drive and University Street in Peoria.
It switches through different images and ads.
That movement is what's catching people's eyes and that's bringing in dollars for advertisers.
“From an advertising standpoint it's been a huge impact. We've had calls from the very first day from some of the advertisers that signed up saying they've got a ton of calls in saying what are you doing I've seen your billboard,” said Paul Zacovic of Adams Outdoor Advertising.
The billboard also adapts to light conditions.
Its been in Peoria for about a month.
There is a similar smaller billboard near University and Glen and at least one in the Twin Cities
Source: Heart of Illinois- By Laura Michels
The L.E.D. digital billboard is on the corner of War Memorial Drive and University Street in Peoria.
It switches through different images and ads.
That movement is what's catching people's eyes and that's bringing in dollars for advertisers.
“From an advertising standpoint it's been a huge impact. We've had calls from the very first day from some of the advertisers that signed up saying they've got a ton of calls in saying what are you doing I've seen your billboard,” said Paul Zacovic of Adams Outdoor Advertising.
The billboard also adapts to light conditions.
Its been in Peoria for about a month.
There is a similar smaller billboard near University and Glen and at least one in the Twin Cities
Source: Heart of Illinois- By Laura Michels
New Braunfels puts hold on billboards
NEW BRAUNFELS — The City Council here unanimously imposed a 180-day moratorium on digital billboards in the city.
Council members said they want an ordinance to regulate them before the city is hit with a wave of permit applications.
State officials are considering allowing the new, light-up billboards, which can flash a new message every few seconds, along highways. New Braunfels already has one application for such a billboard, which will be considered by the city because it came before the moratorium.
The council decided late Monday to reconvene a committee that disbanded this year after making recommendations for a sign ordinance. The panel will consider whether the city should allow digital billboards and, if so, how bright they can be, the number of messages they can display and how quickly the messages can change.
Opponents of the billboards complain that they cause light pollution and distract drivers. Industry representatives say their studies show no increase in accidents.
Source: Express-News
Council members said they want an ordinance to regulate them before the city is hit with a wave of permit applications.
State officials are considering allowing the new, light-up billboards, which can flash a new message every few seconds, along highways. New Braunfels already has one application for such a billboard, which will be considered by the city because it came before the moratorium.
The council decided late Monday to reconvene a committee that disbanded this year after making recommendations for a sign ordinance. The panel will consider whether the city should allow digital billboards and, if so, how bright they can be, the number of messages they can display and how quickly the messages can change.
Opponents of the billboards complain that they cause light pollution and distract drivers. Industry representatives say their studies show no increase in accidents.
Source: Express-News
Flashing billboards won't be distracting GR drivers
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
GRAND RAPIDS -- City motorists will not be distracted by videos or flashing messages on local billboards anytime soon, thanks to a three-month moratorium imposed by city commissioners Tuesday.
The ban came at the request of City Planning Director Suzanne Schulz, who warned that the city's 1969 zoning ordinance was powerless to stop billboard companies from installing high-tech billboards that could distract motorists by projecting high-quality video images.
The moratorium gives city commissioners time to adopt a zoning ordinance that will restrict the video billboards, Schulz said.
The city has no video billboards along its streets and highways now, but Schulz said they are showing up elsewhere in Michigan, including smaller cities such as Traverse City.
Schulz said the ban was not designed to limit free speech. Instead, it is meant to balance the public's right to be free of signs that distract drivers and pedestrians and cause confusion.
Ban only for 'off-premise' signs
The latest ban affects only "off-premise" signs, such as billboards. Last year, the City Commission adopted an ordinance governing electronic "on-premise" business signs.
Though the automated signs are banned in residential neighborhoods, churches and schools are allowed to install them if they get Planning Commission approval.
Source: By Jim Harger -The Grand Rapids Press
GRAND RAPIDS -- City motorists will not be distracted by videos or flashing messages on local billboards anytime soon, thanks to a three-month moratorium imposed by city commissioners Tuesday.
The ban came at the request of City Planning Director Suzanne Schulz, who warned that the city's 1969 zoning ordinance was powerless to stop billboard companies from installing high-tech billboards that could distract motorists by projecting high-quality video images.
The moratorium gives city commissioners time to adopt a zoning ordinance that will restrict the video billboards, Schulz said.
The city has no video billboards along its streets and highways now, but Schulz said they are showing up elsewhere in Michigan, including smaller cities such as Traverse City.
Schulz said the ban was not designed to limit free speech. Instead, it is meant to balance the public's right to be free of signs that distract drivers and pedestrians and cause confusion.
Ban only for 'off-premise' signs
The latest ban affects only "off-premise" signs, such as billboards. Last year, the City Commission adopted an ordinance governing electronic "on-premise" business signs.
Though the automated signs are banned in residential neighborhoods, churches and schools are allowed to install them if they get Planning Commission approval.
Source: By Jim Harger -The Grand Rapids Press
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)