Digital billboards signal battle on Jacksonville regulations

[stjr]

Wait a minute.  Government is a force and a very strong force at that.  Are you guys saying that my right as an independent business is trumped by your desire to make the city "digital sign free"?  Are you guys saying that if I want to put a digital sign up your willing to use the force of government to come down, forcibly take down my sign, and then put me in jail if necessary no matter how viable or how useful or how good my business is to the community?  All this over a simple sign? 

Whatever happened to protecting the rights of the individual and use the force of government only when it is necessary for a functional society?

What is being discussed is the erection of NEW signs or the modification of existing ones to do something currently prohibited.  Follow the law and you should be just fine.

We have long had laws regulating light, odor, noise and a multitude of environmental pollution sources in addition to visual pollution (Don't forget we have laws about blight, overgrown yards, trash, etc., all forms of visual pollution.  And, then there are zoning laws that regulate all manner of what you can do on or with your property.).

As a member of "developed" society, we all must accept certain restrictions on our behavior for the general welfare and function of all.  No doubt, many may disagree on where the boundaries are but that is part of the function of government most accept:  To determine and administrate an orderly and (hopefully) fair set of societal laws and rules built on the consensus and support of most through (again, hopefully) a transparent and judicious process.  It's not perfect, but, hey, its delivered the greatest society in the history of mankind.

There is always going to be a struggle to find the balance between individual rights and societal ones.  You win some, you lose some.  You never win every time.  Outdoor signs can be an affront to many who don't appreciate the message, the size, the imposition, the distraction, the view blockage, the aesthetics, etc. you are creating for those who also have individual rights to peacefully enjoy their property.  Because some people are insensitive to, or extreme about, such issues, it unfortunately takes a law to force people to be more considerate of each other.  Again the issue is where to draw the line.

[mtraininjax]

As a member of "developed" society, we all must accept certain restrictions on our behavior for the general welfare and function of all.

Says who? With thinking like that, we'd still be under England's rule!

[Jdog]

Down on Philips Highway there is a freaking huge new (digital?) billboard going up today. The damn thing is so big it blocks out the sun!

OCKLAWAHA

I'll be up Philips way this evening...I'd like to drive by.  Where is this?

[cityimrov]

Wait a minute.  Government is a force and a very strong force at that.  Are you guys saying that my right as an independent business is trumped by your desire to make the city "digital sign free"?  Are you guys saying that if I want to put a digital sign up your willing to use the force of government to come down, forcibly take down my sign, and then put me in jail if necessary no matter how viable or how useful or how good my business is to the community?  All this over a simple sign?  

Whatever happened to protecting the rights of the individual and use the force of government only when it is necessary for a functional society?

What is being discussed is the erection of NEW signs or the modification of existing ones to do something currently prohibited.  Follow the law and you should be just fine.

We have long had laws regulating light, odor, noise and a multitude of environmental pollution sources in addition to visual pollution (Don't forget we have laws about blight, overgrown yards, trash, etc., all forms of visual pollution.  And, then there are zoning laws that regulate all manner of what you can do on or with your property.).

As a member of "developed" society, we all must accept certain restrictions on our behavior for the general welfare and function of all.  No doubt, many may disagree on where the boundaries are but that is part of the function of government most accept:  To determine and administrate an orderly and (hopefully) fair set of societal laws and rules built on the consensus and support of most through (again, hopefully) a transparent and judicious process.  It's not perfect, but, hey, its delivered the greatest society in the history of mankind.

There is always going to be a struggle to find the balance between individual rights and societal ones.  You win some, you lose some.  You never win every time.  Outdoor signs can be an affront to many who don't appreciate the message, the size, the imposition, the distraction, the view blockage, the aesthetics, etc. you are creating for those who also have individual rights to peacefully enjoy their property.  Because some people are insensitive to, or extreme about, such issues, it unfortunately takes a law to force people to be more considerate of each other.  Again the issue is where to draw the line.

I heard this argument of "a developed society" before.  Was it from the Supreme Court?  Not really.  The arguments there only really fly if it's an endangerment to states rights or directly impeding an individual right.  

Now where did I hear this...  I remember now, I heard it from the arguments given by politicians in Australia and England.  I remembered hearing from politicians there talk about if a certain media form should be allowed in a "modern civilized society".  There are certain violent or sexually depicting material that are now banned in Australia because they are useless if not harmful to modern society.  It also used quite often in different social engineering experiments those two countries do.  There called "Nanny States" for a reason.  

Now back to the US, where we should use the "Should this be something government should be involved in?"   Is Visual Pollution really pollution?  Does it harm other people?  Noise pollution is possible because you cannot stop listening to sound.  Environmental is obvious.  Visual?  Unless it's blocking an important section or possibly causing a major distraction (i.e. laser signs pointing to drivers eyes is a big no-no), it seems like it could easily be ignored and not impede on an individual.  

But Aesthetics?  Should we be using government force on aesthetics?  Should we be using government force to control the message of the sign?  That's my big question, should government really be involved in this?  

[JeffreyS]

^Yes

[Bativac]

But Aesthetics?  Should we be using government force on aesthetics?  Should we be using government force to control the message of the sign?  That's my big question, should government really be involved in this?  

I am 100% in support of these digital billboards.

However, if the people of Jacksonville honestly don't want them, and are able to convince their council members of this fact, then fine - as a city, continue to refuse to allow businesses to advertise. This is why I have fewer issues with the elected government of this city and greater issues with the people who live here. They seem to be actively anti-anything that might bring some kind of vibrance and life to the city, and vote people into office who will ensure the pristine sea of vacant lots, parking garages, and half empty office buildings that is our downtown will remain as such.

It's the same old Jacksonville. Abandon older neighborhoods and keep spreading out. We want the area to be kept pristine and beautiful, except for another housing development, and another strip mall, and more roads, and other components of sprawl that will do far more damage than a bright billboard ever will.

Visual pollution? That Academy Sports building in the middle of a gigantic parking lot with huge roads and overpasses built to support it. The half empty strip malls up and down Beach and Atlantic, and on Phillips Highway. That's visual pollution.

But God forbid we allow someone to put up a bright sign.

[Ocklawaha]

Down on Philips Highway there is a freaking huge new (digital?) billboard going up today. The damn thing is so big it blocks out the sun!

OCKLAWAHA

I'll be up Philips way this evening...I'd like to drive by.  Where is this?

Sorry for the late reply jdog, but it's around the Avenues Mall, I believe east side of the road, between 9-a and Avenues. I know the post was impressive, as big around as the nearby pickup truck.

OCKLAWAHA

[Bativac]

Just noticed one of these digital billboards at Beach and Southside yesterday. It made no more of an impression on me than any other billboard, but it was daylight - at night, it would have been more noticeable.

I did not sense any negative impact to the pristine beauty of that intersection.

[mtraininjax]

The whole sign ordinance should be thrown out and rebuilt. What was standard in 1980s is obviously not the standard now.

[TheProfessor]

The digital billboards are terribly bright at night, especially if your window has a direct view.

[wsansewjs]

But Aesthetics?  Should we be using government force on aesthetics?  Should we be using government force to control the message of the sign?  That's my big question, should government really be involved in this?  

I am 100% in support of these digital billboards.

However, if the people of Jacksonville honestly don't want them, and are able to convince their council members of this fact, then fine - as a city, continue to refuse to allow businesses to advertise. This is why I have fewer issues with the elected government of this city and greater issues with the people who live here. They seem to be actively anti-anything that might bring some kind of vibrance and life to the city, and vote people into office who will ensure the pristine sea of vacant lots, parking garages, and half empty office buildings that is our downtown will remain as such.

It's the same old Jacksonville. Abandon older neighborhoods and keep spreading out. We want the area to be kept pristine and beautiful, except for another housing development, and another strip mall, and more roads, and other components of sprawl that will do far more damage than a bright billboard ever will.

Visual pollution? That Academy Sports building in the middle of a gigantic parking lot with huge roads and overpasses built to support it. The half empty strip malls up and down Beach and Atlantic, and on Phillips Highway. That's visual pollution.

But God forbid we allow someone to put up a bright sign.

I have no problem with the digital billboards, but if they luminance over one billion candlepowers and blind you to hell, then I would be happy to tamper the power box to disable it until the issue is resolved.

-Josh

[JeffreyS]

No surprise that I see plenty of digital billboards as I roam Chicago for a few days but they fit right in Bloomington where I was on Tuesday.

[duvaldude08]

There a new digital billboard up off of 95-N between University and Emerson. Looks very cool.

[Jason]

I just drove through there on sunday and didn't even notice it.

[Bativac]

I noticed it yesterday. The ad changed as I was looking at it, and I immediately lost control of my car and caused a seventeen car pileup.

Seriously, though, now that these things are up, I cannot believe there was a serious debate about them. Yeah, they're bright, but the areas they're in are full of light pollution from other sources anyway.

I agree with keeping pristine areas pristine. The stretch of A1A between Ponte Vedra and Flagler Beach for example. But I-95 and Emerson? Beach and Southside? Gimme a break.