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

[Debbie Thompson]

Since I think digital billboards are too bright and dangerously distracting, I'm actually fine with this.  Although they will probably lose since the city appears to be bending over for Clear Channel.  Really?  Allowing the billboard company to write the ordinance?  Isn't that just about the very definition of allowing the fox to guard the hen house?

[tufsu1]

Although they will probably lose since the city appears to be bending over for Clear Channel.  Really?  Allowing the billboard company to write the ordinance?  Isn't that just about the very definition of allowing the fox to guard the hen house?

It isn't "the City" that is allowing this....Clear Channel drafted legislation that has since been sponsored by CM Richard Clark...whether good or bad, it is very common (especially at the state level).

[spuwho]

Although they will probably lose since the city appears to be bending over for Clear Channel.  Really?  Allowing the billboard company to write the ordinance?  Isn't that just about the very definition of allowing the fox to guard the hen house?

It isn't "the City" that is allowing this....Clear Channel drafted legislation that has since been sponsored by CM Richard Clark...whether good or bad, it is very common (especially at the state level).

It is somewhat common for legislators to have the industry write the legislation they want. Exceptions to this usually occur around taxation, social services, etc.

The last two telecom deregulation acts in Congress were written by lobbyists for the industry.  The MPAA and RIAA have been very, very active in writing the new legislation on copying and pirating (SOPA).  Since no one expects a legislator to be a legal expert at all aspects of all kinds of regulation in all industries, and in absence of large staffs who could research and vet the potential rules, they prefer to have the regulated write their own language and then amend it as needed.  If it doesn't work, then the legislators know that can go back to committee and have proposals to revoke the law, amend it or make other changes as they see fit.

This way the industry seeking the rules end up covering all the costs of getting the legislation written.

[ChriswUfGator]

So then why does the legislature have drafting clerks and staff counsel? Come on, while that happens, it's only gotten to be considered 'normal' in the past 30 years or so. Prior to that, while I'm sure it still happened in back rooms, people saw it for the conflict of interest it is.

[JayBird]

^ Actually not really, if you look back to the beginnings of both the oil and the railroad industries in our country you'll find that Cornelius Vanderbilt and Rockefeller had a huge say in implementing the regulations. Of course, this later led to laws against monopolies so maybe that isn't a good example. When I worked for AT&T Corp from 1999-2001 they had an entire department called Regulatory Affairs and the entire purpose was to draft legislation for the benefit of the companies' mission, and it wasn't hidden. I think this is how business has been done since business started. Otherwise each member of the House and Senate would need huge staffs to study each industry and an even bigger legal staff ... That would probably use more tax dollars than the military if they changed it. As a matter of fact, most companies even offer "fill-in-the-blank" RFP's for purchases such as a vehicles or construction work that many municipalities across the country take advantage of.

[tufsu1]

It also isn't "conflict of interest".....it is called advocacy and groups on all sides do it....it is only a problem if the authors aren't disclosed.

[ChriswUfGator]

^ Actually not really, if you look back to the beginnings of both the oil and the railroad industries in our country you'll find that Cornelius Vanderbilt and Rockefeller had a huge say in implementing the regulations. Of course, this later led to laws against monopolies so maybe that isn't a good example. When I worked for AT&T Corp from 1999-2001 they had an entire department called Regulatory Affairs and the entire purpose was to draft legislation for the benefit of the companies' mission, and it wasn't hidden. I think this is how business has been done since business started. Otherwise each member of the House and Senate would need huge staffs to study each industry and an even bigger legal staff ... That would probably use more tax dollars than the military if they changed it. As a matter of fact, most companies even offer "fill-in-the-blank" RFP's for purchases such as a vehicles or construction work that many municipalities across the country take advantage of.

They do in fact have large staffs, plus most of them are lawyers themselves, it's not gobblygook to them, they know what they're looking at. And yeah, I bet AT&T had a whole department, although I'll cut them a pass since I've always thought they got a raw deal on divestiture. That said they've put 3/4'ths of it back together quietly.

[ChriswUfGator]

It also isn't "conflict of interest".....it is called advocacy and groups on all sides do it....it is only a problem if the authors aren't disclosed.

It's a conflict of interest. I love how you're correcting me on a matter of political opinion, by the way. There's no right answer, other than perhaps that the way we're doing it presently (which you're evidently advocating for) isn't working.

[tufsu1]

^ see, advocacy

[Riverrat]

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!"

Then perhaps there should be a special tax on billboard companies - all of the special tax money raised would fund road/transportation related projects. So then, we would see ads that are paying for the roads we drive on.

[thelakelander]

sort of like using ads to pay for bike sharing and bus shelters?





Our past history suggests we'd still fight to keep the things shown above from happening if they included some form of advertising to help fund their existence.