Stop The Billboard Scam!

[Dog Walker]

Draft Copy of the web site of a group opposed to the Charter change:  link will be posted when site goes live.

STOP THE BILLBOARD SCAM!!

The Jacksonville City Council is considering a bill that would gut the billboard charter amendment approved overwhelming by the voters in 1987. That citizens initiative stopped the construction of new billboards and caused the removal of hundreds of billboards from Jacksonville roadways.

This special interest legislation, drafted by the attorney for Clear Channel Outdoor and introduced by Council Member Clark, would among other things:

•   Nullify the action of voters and change Jacksonville from a city with one of the best billboard laws         in the country to the one of the worst.

•   Allow new billboards to be erected on highways that have always been billboard free, such as Butler Boulevard, SR 9A, Wonderwood Connector and Old St. Augustine Road.

•   Bring back billboards on roads where they have been or will be eliminated, such as Airport Road, all of downtown, Arlington Expressway, Hendricks Avenue and most of Roosevelt Boulevard and San Jose Boulevard.

•   Allow all new billboard to be digital billboards, making Jacksonville the first city in Florida, if not the nation, to do so.

•   Allow billboards in the least intensive commercial zoning districts, such as neighborhood commercial and professional office uses.

•   Allow billboards directly across the street from single-family homes.

•   Allow billboards on public property.

•   Allow up to 12 billboards per mile.

•   Increase the allowed size of billboards, including add-ons, to 874 square feet.

•   Allow all new billboards to be 65 feet high.

•   Save the billboard industry (and cost taxpayers) thousand of dollars by eliminating annual permit fees for billboards.

•   Eliminate the right of citizens to bring lawsuits to enforce the billboard charter amendment.

•   Eliminate $500 per day fines for illegal billboards.

•   Eliminate traffic safety as a basis in the charter for regulating billboards

In short, this bill (Ordinance 2013-493) could hardly be worse. And, it will become law in the next few weeks unless people like you take action to stop it.

Please pass the message on to your friends and associates right away. Time is of the essence!

The Clear Channel lawyers are threatening the City with a $50 Million claim in a lawsuit they have no chance of winning, but that will cost a lot of money to litigate.  They are trying to scare some Council members and give other members cover for voting for this horrible bill.

The Council caved to the billboard industry in 1987 and would not act which is why it took a Citizen's Initiative and petition drive to put it on the ballot where it was overwhelmingly approved by the people.

If corporations are people, then Clear Channel, which is largely owned by Bain Capital, is an evil person.  Bain seems to be the center of an Axis of Corporate Evil.

[CityLife]

Anyone notice that terrible PR campaign by the billboard industry lately? A couple of the slogans I've seen are "Billboards help find missing children" and "Billboards warn you about the weather". I've seen a few others, but can't remember off the top of my head.

[CityLife]

Can someone please link a copy of the bill?

[m74reeves]

http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJBillList.asp?Bill=2013-0493

see if this works...23 pages

[Dog Walker]

Anyone notice that terrible PR campaign by the billboard industry lately? A couple of the slogans I've seen are "Billboards help find missing children" and "Billboards warn you about the weather". I've seen a few others, but can't remember off the top of my head.

Clear Channel is using the offer of free advertising to civic and non-profit groups to buy off any opposition they might have.  At eight seconds per view on the digital billboards, they can afford to do this since the message can change 10,000 time per day.

Responsible non-profits like the Riverkeeper have pledged not to use the digital billboards.

[CityLife]

http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJBillList.asp?Bill=2013-0493

see if this works...23 pages

It did. Thanks!

[Dog Walker]

No, Stephen.  This is a part of a nationwide push on the part of the outdoor advertising industry to remove all restrictions on outdoor advertising.  Bill's push back has always been against the nose of the camel.

Miami-Dade is actually allowing their government buildings to be wrapped in huge advertisements for about $40K per year in official payment and, this being Miami, and undisclosed amount of payment to elected officials.

Now that I think about it, though, wrapping the new courthouse in a Budweiser ad might actually improve the appearance.  But that's another topic.

[m74reeves]

a bus shelter is one thing. a "672 sqaure foot" sign is another.

my favorite part of proposed ordinance is how often the phrase "off-site outdoor advertising offers significant benefits to the public health, safety and welfare" is used.

[Dog Walker]

If you have driven through states that do not allow outdoor advertising at all, you would not have to decide.  They are wonderful, peaceful and you can see the natural beauty of the countryside and the cities.

There is a reason that all new subdivisions are built with all of their electric lines underground.

If there were trucks with loudspeakers on them driving through your streets blaring advertising so loudly that you could not ignore it how would you feel about it?  Outdoor advertising is the visual equivalent.  I really don't like being shouted at through my eyes.

Another aspect of outdoor advertising is that they are using a publicly owned space for their private purpose without compensating each of us for it.  Think of the bottled water companies pumping water out of the Floridan Aquifer for free, bottling it and selling it to us.  Same difference.

I can avoid advertising in the paper.  I turn the volume down during ads on TV.  I throw away the inserts in the Sunday papers unread and throw away the junk mail in my mailbox.  The billboards cannot be avoided which is why the billboard industry is so ravenous for our roads and streets.  Free eyeballs!

They will lie, cheat, bribe, sue to push their messages in our faces whether we want them there or not.

The two ugliest things in our built environment are billboards and utility lines on poles.  We are so used to the poles and lines that we really don't see them anymore, but the billboards change and are colorful and cannot be ignored.  Not being ignored is their purpose.

Some of us remember how ugly the city was with billboards and flashing signs in front of every laundromat.  Let's not go back to those days in Jacksonville.

Please.

[thelakelander]

Sprawl is the ugliest thing to me in this city.  For example, although I have no idea of how many billboards line this stretch, University Boulevard between Philips and Beach is one of the ugliest corridors in town. Also, I'm not impressed by newer roadway projects like Airport Center Drive. Landscaping highway medians with trees instead of using them to provide shade for pedestrians makes no sense to me.

Getting off that soapbox, when it comes to billboards, generally I've never had a problem with them.  To me, they're another part of a built environment that features massive asphalt surface lots, wide roads, vacant strip malls, aging motels and fast food restaurants.  I wasn't in Jax to see whatever resulted in the continued sign/billboard fights that take place today, so I can't say what's been done so far is a negative or positive.

Nevertheless, although I haven't really paid attention to this legislation I'd be lying if I said I didn't find stuff like this attractive and was jealous that we can't have similar signage in certain locations.

[WmNussbaum]

First thing is full disclosure: I am a member of City Beautiful, and advocacy group which Bill Brinton headed – and still heads in spirit.  Among other things we do is to bring to the attention of the City, the JEA, the DOT, and other governmental folks, visual pollution in the area. Visual pollution includes the following in city right of ways: rusted fire hydrants, broken sidewalks, graffiti, abandoned cars, dead trees, and so on.

Second thing is that I think the City looks awful enough without a proliferation of the likenesses of Messrs. Farah (You can call me Eddie/Chuck – even though we're really very big shots); Harrell, Morgan, et al. Speaking of the courthouse, right behind it is a big building owned by AT&T (a firm that has more than a few dollars in its coffers), the landscaping of which is overrun by weeds. You would think that a business with that kind of wherewithal could spend a few bucks in conveying a positive image, not a negative one. I suspect that a lot of the houses in Springfield that were torn down looked like crap, so we lost some history and gained some reduction in ugly.

The settlement reached with the billboard industry prohibited electronic ones, but enough money is now at stake for Clear Channel and its fellow travelers, that they have begun erecting them all over town. Do they have some public interest messages such as Amber Alerts? Sure. It's called greasing the palms. Dog Walker is absolutely correct: If we don't get the nose of the camel out of the tent the whole animal soon will be in it.

I've opined before on this site about billboards and asked if they really influence anyone. Does anyone with a medical emergency tell the EMS folks to take them to hospital A even though B may be closer?  Does anyone really believe Budweiser is the King of Beers? Does anyone think they will even get to see Eddie (in between commercial "takes"), much less call him by name?

Go to Vermont and see what a state looks like that allows no billboards. Sure it's not quite as easy to find Burger King – god forbid – but the place looks pristine. If the bill introduced in Council is approved it will be one of the lily-livered body's biggest black eyes. For shame for even introducing it.

[vicupstate]

If you have driven through states that do not allow outdoor advertising at all, you would not have to decide.  They are wonderful, peaceful and you can see the natural beauty of the countryside and the cities.

There is a reason that all new subdivisions are built with all of their electric lines underground.

If there were trucks with loudspeakers on them driving through your streets blaring advertising so loudly that you could not ignore it how would you feel about it?  Outdoor advertising is the visual equivalent.  I really don't like being shouted at through my eyes.

Another aspect of outdoor advertising is that they are using a publicly owned space for their private purpose without compensating each of us for it.  Think of the bottled water companies pumping water out of the Floridan Aquifer for free, bottling it and selling it to us.  Same difference.

I can avoid advertising in the paper.  I turn the volume down during ads on TV.  I throw away the inserts in the Sunday papers unread and throw away the junk mail in my mailbox.  The billboards cannot be avoided which is why the billboard industry is so ravenous for our roads and streets.  Free eyeballs!

They will lie, cheat, bribe, sue to push their messages in our faces whether we want them there or not.

The two ugliest things in our built environment are billboards and utility lines on poles.  We are so used to the poles and lines that we really don't see them anymore, but the billboards change and are colorful and cannot be ignored.  Not being ignored is their purpose.

Some of us remember how ugly the city was with billboards and flashing signs in front of every laundromat.  Let's not go back to those days in Jacksonville.

Please.

+1,000

Dogwalker is right about states that don't allow these. Vermont and Colorado being two.  Once you pass into Wyoming from Colorado, it is a very stark and negative change. 

One of the things that has always appealed to me the most about Jax, is the lack of billboard clutter.  Butler Blvd. will look like shit with these things every five feet, one on top of the other, and I assure you, that IS what will happen.

SC has been covered in these things, especially since our Whore Legislature made local laws virtually impotent, thanks to the massive increase in campaign contributions from the Outdoor Advertising industry.

How many bus stops (which the Transit Authority should provide anyway) would be bought with ad revenue? 
Even if teaks might be necessary in the current law, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  There was a REASON an overwhelmingly majority of voters approved the ban in the first place.  Don't doubt that that reason will return if the restrictions are removed.   

[thelakelander]

I thought council gave JTA the approval to allow bus shelters with ads on them.  The issue with JTA is an RFP was issued, only one company responded and JTA didn't want to go with them. Personally, I'd like to see JTA reissue a modified bus shelter RFP that attracts more respondents.

[Charles Hunter]

I have seen JTA shelters with ads. Maybe they are selling the ad space themselves, instead of through a contractor?  I don't have a problem with ad-shelters, but do have a problem with the return and expansion of billboards.  They are ugly.  They serve to purpose, except to make money for the billboard companies - and perhaps provide employment for soon-to-be-ex-council members.

[CityLife]

I don't see billboards as having any public benefit other than to those select few who profit off them. Sure in some cases, it may be worth making a sacrifice to the public good IF there is some financial benefit to be had by a significant portion of the population. Like for instance a port dredging project that may negatively impact the environment, but may also potentially create jobs and stimulate the economy (Not advocating for that project, just saying its at least worthy of discussion).

The visual pollution and clutter from billboards faaaaar outweigh any potential benefit to the economy. I'd be very suspicious of any politician that would sell their constituents out for something like this.