Downtown board rejects request for digital billboard in Southbank Read more at

[thelakelander]

It would be nice if the majority of the DDRB would take this position against some of the poor building project designs they've approved in recent months.

The board voted 4-2 against the application even though city lawyer Jason Teal said the board cannot prevent billboards from being built.

The city's building inspection division issues billboard permits. Teal said those permits are dictated by the terms of settlement agreements reached between the city and billboard companies in the 1990s.

"Your role is not to say whether the billboard is allowed to go there," Teal told the downtown review board. "It is to say what the billboard must look like if the developer does go forward."

full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-09-05/story/downtown-board-rejects-request-digital-billboard-southbank

[fsujax]

yeah they need to be spending their time on more important matters. Who cares about a digital billboard being downtown, it might actually make the city look bright and alive (God forbid), with all of ouf our dark, unlit towers it always appears as if no one is home.

[Tacachale]

So they do know how to say "no".

[tufsu1]

yeah they need to be spending their time on more important matters. Who cares about a digital billboard being downtown, it might actually make the city look bright and alive (God forbid), with all of ouf our dark, unlit towers it always appears as if no one is home.

not sure I agree here....there is a place for outdoor advertising, but too much of it could be a bad thing....I'd like to see some trade-off standards...say removing 5 old billboards for every new digital one....St. Pete got something like a 13-1 ratio!

[thelakelander]

Although this wasn't being discussed, I'd actually be okay with a big digital billboard on a side of downtown building.

[CityLife]

Although this wasn't being discussed, I'd actually be okay with a big digital billboard on a side of downtown building.

As would I, but with some pre-established standards.

[Dog Walker]

"I think that I shall never see a billboard pretty as a tree" - with apologies to Joyce Kilmer

[Riverrat]

yeah they need to be spending their time on more important matters. Who cares about a digital billboard being downtown, it might actually make the city look bright and alive (God forbid), with all of ouf our dark, unlit towers it always appears as if no one is home.

++++1

Definitely could make things bright and alive. Why do they say no to this, but yes to piss-poor suburban design in the urban areas? Good grief the priorities are backwards.

[mbwright]

this sort of reminds me of the rejection of the advertising on the skyway, during the superbowl.

[Dog Walker]

No, Apache.  Those streets are in a different part of town.   

[jcjohnpaint]

Our city leaders protecting us with all their might from becoming Blade Runner Los Angeles 2019

[WmNussbaum]

Dog Walker, you didn't finish the quote:

I think that I shall never see
a billboard pretty as a tree,
And unless the billboards fall
I'll never see a tree at all.

Travel down I-75 south of Gainesville, and about every half mile or so for many miles, you'll see the "We dare to bare" signs. Ennis, how cool would that be in electric lights on the side of one of our tall downtown buildings? Or on all of them? After all, if Building A can have such a sign and reap the financial benefits, why can't I on my Buildings B, C, D, etc.?

The billboard ordinance that is being considered was drafted by Clear Channel. Does anyone seriously believe it would draft legislation that would do anything but improve its revenue? And how will its revenue increase? Fewer billboards? Ummm, I think not. Clear Channel is flat out lying to us. If it is right that the settlement agreements reached long ago are about to expire, then why did it not choose to just lay low, let them expire, and then have free range to do whatever it wanted?

[Dog Walker]

There is a philosophical and economic difference between billboard advertising and all other forms of advertising.

We watch advertisements on TV.  They pay for the programs we like to watch.  We read advertisements in magazines and newspapers.  They pay for the stories we want to read.  We listen to advertisements on the radio because they pay for the music we want to hear.

Billboards return no value to us at all.  Instead the make use of a public space that we, as taxpayers, have developed over the years to make money for themselves and return no benefit to us.  Instead they degrade our visual environment and lower our quality of life and we cannot avoid them.

I always want to yell at them, "Get out of my face!"

Bill, that wonderful take off on Joyce Kilmer was written by Ogden Nash, my favorite poet.  "Here's a poem about rabbits that doesn't mention their habits!"

[JayBird]

Billboards return no value to us at all.  Instead the make use of a public space that we, as taxpayers, have developed over the years to make money for themselves and return no benefit to us.  Instead they degrade our visual environment and lower our quality of life and we cannot avoid them.

Being that this is about a Southbank billboard, I thought this was on the side of a privately owned building ... And even if it was a public building, that would be revenue to go towards the buildings maintenance. Maybe instead of being pro- or anti- billboard it would be wiser to be more "depending upon on where it is will determine the circumstances around it".

[Charles Hunter]

Since the advertising value of a billboard is based on the number of cars going by on the highway, maybe there should be a tax (or fee) based on that number of cars, that goes to whatever agency maintains the road (City, DOT, etc.).

As someone said earlier, with Clear Channel writing the proposed ordinance, we aren't going to get anything better than 2:1 trade off of old billboards for new.  I envy St. Pete's 15:1 (or something like that).