Stop The Billboard Scam!

[CityLife]

What are folks thoughts on the personal property rights of the owners of property when these signs may go?

A jurisdiction has a right to dictate where signage may be deemed appropriate for the public interest....

What are your thoughts on someone putting a billboard in the front yard of a residential home they own? What does that do for the personal property rights of their neighbors?

[CityLife]

What are folks thoughts on the personal property rights of the owners of property when these signs may go?

A jurisdiction has a right to dictate where signage may be deemed appropriate for the public interest....

What are your thoughts on someone putting a billboard in the front yard of a residential home they own? What does that do for the personal property rights of their neighbors?

Is that what we are talking about here? People putting billboards in residential yards?

So you only like to use the personal property rights argument when it suits your position? Is that what I'm reading here?

Answer the question though. Should any private property owner be able to put a sign or billboard wherever he or she pleases?

[CityLife]

What are folks thoughts on the personal property rights of the owners of property when these signs may go?

A jurisdiction has a right to dictate where signage may be deemed appropriate for the public interest....

What are your thoughts on someone putting a billboard in the front yard of a residential home they own? What does that do for the personal property rights of their neighbors?

Is that a God given right the jurisdiction has to dictate where signage be deemed appropriate for the public interest comrade or a constitutional one?

Lol at calling the regulation of signage and billboards communism....

You seem to feel pretty strongly about a governments ability to regulate signage. Perhaps you should challenge whether or not it is constitutional in court. Please send me the invite when you do....

[thelakelander]

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. 

We've used local digital billboards for free PSAs for community groups, special events, and not-for-profits. The public benefit in these cases is that you can promote endeavors to hundreds of thousands of people who may otherwise, not be aware of them.  Whenever I get the chance, I tell all our local tactical urbanist to take advantage of free PSA opportunities to promote their events and community meetings. The signs are there, might as well take advantage of them.

Other than that, yes, billboards are for profit venues for those who own them. Sort of like all the fast food restaurants, strip shopping centers, downtown private parking lots and gas stations that dominate our city. Visual pollution and clutter is totally based on the eye of the beholder, IMO. 

With that said, is there middle ground that can be struck between opposing sides or is this a hell or high water fight to the death?

[vicupstate]

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.

I think this is the problem with our existing (and probably not very constitutional) law.

It threw a bunch of babies out with the bathwater, and Bill Brinton and company have strangled every one of them in their cribs.  The anti billboard ordinance became much much more than people were asking for, and the intractible position that the original advocacy group has taken has made it plain that no 'tweaking' is possible.

It will be because the city council was bought off or  cajoled into believing a lie.   Keep in mind that this ban exists ONLY because it was approved in a VOTER REFERENDUM.  The original vote was for a TOTAL ban of billboards, it was the city council that renegotiated a compromise that allowed  most of them to REMAIN, despite an overwhelming (78% if memory serves) defeat at the polls for the billboard companies. 

Stephen, trust me, these people will take a couple of MILES, if you give them an inch. 

[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. 

Other than that, yes, billboards are for profit venues for those who own them. Sort of like all the fast food restaurants, strip shopping centers, downtown private parking lots and gas stations that dominate our city. Visual pollution and clutter is totally based on the eye of the beholder, IMO. 

Strip clubs and electronic gaming centers are also "for profit venues", but many places have banned them as well...And you can't exactly compare something that provides essential services like food, gas, and retail with one (advertising) that is absolutely not essential.

[GatorNation]

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.

I think this is the problem with our existing (and probably not very constitutional) law.

It threw a bunch of babies out with the bathwater, and Bill Brinton and company have strangled every one of them in their cribs.  The anti billboard ordinance became much much more than people were asking for, and the intractible position that the original advocacy group has taken has made it plain that no 'tweaking' is possible.

It will be because the city council was bought off or  cajoled into believing a lie.   Keep in mind that this ban exists ONLY because it was approved in a VOTER REFERENDUM.  The original vote was for a TOTAL ban of billboards, it was the city council that renegotiated a compromise that allowed  most of them to REMAIN, despite an overwhelming (78% if memory serves) defeat at the polls for the billboard companies. 

Stephen, trust me, these people will take a couple of MILES, if you give them an inch.

I don't post often, but it's comments like this that I think are deserving of a response.  What's the old saying . . . if you repeat something enough times, it will eventually become the truth . . . or something to that effect.

The facts simply do not support any of the rhetoric.  Read the charter . . . it never proposed to ban all billboards in Jax.  Read the settlement agreements . . . the City Council didn't negotiate them (Bill Brinton did). Read the legislation that someone posted earlier . . . it doesn't state that billboards can be put in someone's front yard, and it doesn't state that billboards are going to pop up all over town again.

I think Stephen is right . . . the anti-sign folks have become so entrenched in their absolutist positions, that there is no room for compromise, much less a civil debate.  Sadly, these types of zero-sum-game arguments seem to be the norm these days.  It's easy to call people names and parrot back statements that support your personal viewpoint, but is that what makes good laws?

That being said, I'm sure both sides of this debate have legitimate points.  I've never understood why, but there are very strong feelings about this particular issue (I remember back when the anti-sign folks were arguing that the Charter did not allow the Jags to have signage on the outside of the stadium).  And I'm sure the pro-sign folks have thrown out their share of hyperboles in the past, as well.

I personally don't think the sky will fall if this bill is passed, but I sure wish there could be some rational and civil discussion of the issue (at least on Metrojax).

[fieldafm]

Sadly, these types of zero-sum-game arguments seem to be the norm these days.  It's easy to call people names and parrot back statements that support your personal viewpoint, but is that what makes good laws?

You should post more often!

[Tacachale]

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.

I think this is the problem with our existing (and probably not very constitutional) law.

It threw a bunch of babies out with the bathwater, and Bill Brinton and company have strangled every one of them in their cribs.  The anti billboard ordinance became much much more than people were asking for, and the intractible position that the original advocacy group has taken has made it plain that no 'tweaking' is possible.

It will be because the city council was bought off or  cajoled into believing a lie.   Keep in mind that this ban exists ONLY because it was approved in a VOTER REFERENDUM.  The original vote was for a TOTAL ban of billboards, it was the city council that renegotiated a compromise that allowed  most of them to REMAIN, despite an overwhelming (78% if memory serves) defeat at the polls for the billboard companies. 

Stephen, trust me, these people will take a couple of MILES, if you give them an inch.

I don't post often, but it's comments like this that I think are deserving of a response.  What's the old saying . . . if you repeat something enough times, it will eventually become the truth . . . or something to that effect.

The facts simply do not support any of the rhetoric.  Read the charter . . . it never proposed to ban all billboards in Jax.  Read the settlement agreements . . . the City Council didn't negotiate them (Bill Brinton did). Read the legislation that someone posted earlier . . . it doesn't state that billboards can be put in someone's front yard, and it doesn't state that billboards are going to pop up all over town again.

I think Stephen is right . . . the anti-sign folks have become so entrenched in their absolutist positions, that there is no room for compromise, much less a civil debate.  Sadly, these types of zero-sum-game arguments seem to be the norm these days.  It's easy to call people names and parrot back statements that support your personal viewpoint, but is that what makes good laws?

That being said, I'm sure both sides of this debate have legitimate points.  I've never understood why, but there are very strong feelings about this particular issue (I remember back when the anti-sign folks were arguing that the Charter did not allow the Jags to have signage on the outside of the stadium).  And I'm sure the pro-sign folks have thrown out their share of hyperboles in the past, as well.

I personally don't think the sky will fall if this bill is passed, but I sure wish there could be some rational and civil discussion of the issue (at least on Metrojax).

Very well said.

[thelakelander]

Great post, GatorNation. With GatorNation's post in mind, is there a middle ground for this particular issue, that can result in a solution for the betterment of the Jacksonville community?

Strip clubs and electronic gaming centers are also "for profit venues", but many places have banned them as well...And you can't exactly compare something that provides essential services like food, gas, and retail with one (advertising) that is absolutely not essential.

It's hard to say serving someone serving artery clogging Big Macs to an already largely obese, non-exercising population is providing an essential service.  However, advertising on some sort of level is very essential for the survival of many of the business services you mentioned.  Nevertheless, at the end of the day, all these venues are similar in that they are operated for the sake of generating revenue for their owners/investors (not that there's anything wrong with that general concept).

I don't have a big dog in this fight but I can see points being raised by both sides of the spectrum.  I just wonder how this is going to end?  Will groups fight to the death or will there be an effort to work together to achieve a viable solution for moving forward.

[ronchamblin]

I just read the entire thread, which has some excellent points to consider.  I add a few points below.

The citizen's environment includes the works of nature ... which is to say, people and other animals, the sky, the trees and the earth itself.... and also includes the works of man.... as in architecture, vehicles, highways, and infrastructure .... necessities in a community.  Some might argue that anything additional, such as visually large boards of propaganda placed in the environment, could be considered visual pollution.

If the only method of communicating commercial messages and other information was billboards, then proponents of the increased billboard pollution might offer more reason and credibility in their efforts to increase the billboard presence. 

But we do indeed have other alternatives for conveying the commercial information and advertising -- newspapers, radio, television, and the Internet via computers and smart phones...... all being mediums less intrusive upon the visual peace of the citizen, all being methods offering a choice to the citizen as to whether they wish to engage the propaganda.

Many Americans have become consumers of all things....more things, and more services... almost obsessively, as if they have nothing else to do.  We might consider whether or not our views of the wonders of nature and works of man are to be obscured, cluttered, and polluted with visual garbage, the only purpose of which is to convey propaganda toward more consumption -- consumption which will be the same with or without the propaganda. 

The advertising and billboard companies would have struggling businesses believe that they should spend all their money on advertising, when the good business practice is to spend more money on perfecting your product or service -- as doing so will be the best guarantee of business survival and success. 

Whereas the newspaper, magazine, radio, television, and Internet medias give the citizen a choice, and are less intrusive upon the senses, the billboard forces visual, and mostly non-essential information and propaganda upon the citizen. 

The outside environment should be beautiful and neutral, unobscured by petty commercial propaganda; it should be a place where the citizen can enjoy nature, and any necessary infrastructures ... architecture, parks, highways... as built by man.  It should not be a place where a citizen if forced to look at excessive images of propaganda and hogwash which only pollutes the landscape.  Who are these people who think they have the right to force visual pollution upon the landscape, when every citizen wants and needs visual peace and scenes of natural beauty?

The proponents of an increased billboard presence are greedy moneyed corporates who are determined to gain wealth at any cost to the environment, or at any cost to the welfare of the average citizen.  Their habits are the same as those who pollute the water, soil, and the air; habits originating from an obsessive lust for money.       

 

[vicupstate]

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.

I think this is the problem with our existing (and probably not very constitutional) law.

It threw a bunch of babies out with the bathwater, and Bill Brinton and company have strangled every one of them in their cribs.  The anti billboard ordinance became much much more than people were asking for, and the intractible position that the original advocacy group has taken has made it plain that no 'tweaking' is possible.

It will be because the city council was bought off or  cajoled into believing a lie.   Keep in mind that this ban exists ONLY because it was approved in a VOTER REFERENDUM.  The original vote was for a TOTAL ban of billboards, it was the city council that renegotiated a compromise that allowed  most of them to REMAIN, despite an overwhelming (78% if memory serves) defeat at the polls for the billboard companies. 

Stephen, trust me, these people will take a couple of MILES, if you give them an inch.

I don't post often, but it's comments like this that I think are deserving of a response.  What's the old saying . . . if you repeat something enough times, it will eventually become the truth . . . or something to that effect.

The facts simply do not support any of the rhetoric.  Read the charter . . . it never proposed to ban all billboards in Jax.  Read the settlement agreements . . . the City Council didn't negotiate them (Bill Brinton did). Read the legislation that someone posted earlier . . . it doesn't state that billboards can be put in someone's front yard, and it doesn't state that billboards are going to pop up all over town again.

I think Stephen is right . . . the anti-sign folks have become so entrenched in their absolutist positions, that there is no room for compromise, much less a civil debate.  Sadly, these types of zero-sum-game arguments seem to be the norm these days.  It's easy to call people names and parrot back statements that support your personal viewpoint, but is that what makes good laws?

That being said, I'm sure both sides of this debate have legitimate points.  I've never understood why, but there are very strong feelings about this particular issue (I remember back when the anti-sign folks were arguing that the Charter did not allow the Jags to have signage on the outside of the stadium).  And I'm sure the pro-sign folks have thrown out their share of hyperboles in the past, as well.

I personally don't think the sky will fall if this bill is passed, but I sure wish there could be some rational and civil discussion of the issue (at least on Metrojax).

I studied this subject pretty extensively many years back.  My understanding from reading many articles and from discussions in person with JCCI staff, is that the REFERENDUM did indeed ban ALL off-premises advertising.  It passed by an overwhelming majority >75%.   

The charter amendment was put to a vote by PETITION method, as the city council did NOT support the change.  Thousands of signatures were required just to put the issue on the ballot.

After the vote, the outdoor ad industry sued the city.  The city and the ad industry negotiated the CURRENT charter wording.  That negotiated agreement required the removal over time of many thousands of billboards (many in residential areas) but allowed others to remain in place.  Also, new ones were not allowed unless it was replacing a damaged one or such as that. 

All of this occurred in the 1980's and  it would seem to me  that the billboard industry must have worn out their welcome pretty bad, to motivate thousands of people to sign a petition, and to lose a  vote by 3 to 1. 

And let's be honest and say that we aren't taking out "Times Square", we are talking about run of the mill standard billboards.   

Let's not forget that this city also once stood up to another polluting industry and said 'no more', also in the 1980's.   That being the paper mill industry, that gave Jacksonville a bad image taht took YEARS to wear off.   

All communities have a right to collectively set standards for themselves.  Just as zoning regulations have been upheld in court, so have billboard regulations.   

[fieldafm]

Well it was actually  less limiting than that Vic.  I was here and part of that original ordinance.

And people did not support the ordinance for the reasons that are currently being pursued.

I also doubt that if the ordinance, as currently enforced, would pass a referendum today.

Just to kind of Segway off the point Stephen is making... the ideals of limiting intrusive visual pollution are indeed worthwhile.  However, the group has started to veer really off course.  Brinton, for instance, has also taken a negative stance on the murals being erected in downtown and in Riverside.  Extremism < Reasonability

[Charles Hunter]

Well, this voter voted for the referendum to remove and limit billboards all over town - not just the trashy trailer signs.  So, please, do not presume to speak for why people voted for something back in 1987.

[thelakelander]

I'm confused. Are more billboards being proposed or is the overall number still declining? How many billboards does the city have now, compared to 1987? Does what's on the table potentially increase this number?