Here we go again....
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQhZzWfJfzMRy5fVVKAzhMPKKEuM9mOz3Gb5LtteSeLTPYO_daQ)
QuoteThe possible arrival of digital billboards in Jacksonville is opening a new battle in how the city regulates billboards.
Clear Channel Outdoors has won approval of city attorneys to install digital billboards - that could change messages every eight seconds - at eight locations in Jacksonville.
But the plan faces fierce criticism by opponents who say it violates a 1995 settlement limiting billboards in the city.
Bill Brinton, an attorney for Scenic Jacksonville, the nonprofit group that pushed the billboard restrictions when voters approved them in a City Charter election, said the legal settlement of those regulations never contemplated digital billboards being allowed in Jacksonville.
"I know this: It's a violation of the settlement agreement," Brinton said.
Digital billboards are the newest innovation in the billboard industry. Clear Channel sells advertising space on digital billboards in 31 metropolitan areas nationwide, according to the company's website.
full article: http://jacksonville.com/business/2010-12-13/story/digital-billboards-signal-battle-jacksonville-regulations
Good. Someone tell Brinton to get over it!
Personally, I don't have a problem with them as long as they replace an existing billboard and are the same size as whatever it replaces. They actually look pretty cool.
I say again... get rid of the sign ordinance.
There's already one comment in the article calling for the ban of all electronic billboards. Have these people never driven thru Orlando? These billboards are extremely sharp and allow for greater design possibilities than old-fashioned billboards. Not only that - but you are less likely to see weather-beaten strips of old billboard hanging around waiting for someone to come out and clean it up.
The attorney for Scenic Jacksonville makes it sound like these things are going to be shining directly in someone's face.
I am inclined to agree that changing every 8 seconds may be a little much, but I don't think this is something there should be a law against.
God forbid somebody bring their money to Jacksonville and make it a little easier for someone to advertise their business.
I don't have a problem with using the digital stuff as REPLACEMENTS for the ones that are apparently exempt from the ruling, but 8 new spots and we're back to ugly ass Orlando roads... As if OURS were landscaped and maintained to any standards.
Does have possibilities though...
"BLINK...RIDE THE STREETCAR...BLINK...RIDE THE STREETCAR...BLINK...RIDE THE STREETCAR!"
OCKLAWAHA
The only billboards I liked around here were the slick targeted Liquor adds off Beaver street ;D
Seriously,I was witness to the birth of the "Digital Zipper" when I worked in Atlantic City for several, months in 89'
They are a distraction,light pollution,and an unnecessary animation of our landscape.
Who is regulating brightness? When all the LEDS are on it is blinding white.and can flash at you like in AC.
My world doesn't move like a ADD soundbite,or a Tom Cruise movie.
The old billboards are not to be repaired or replaced as I last understood.
The old style boards also had downward facing lights that did not light pollute...LEDS blast out horizontally. >:(
What I wrote on FTU:
There is a balance. There is visual blight/distraction, and then there is attractive advertising and signage. I have seen good digital billboards and bad. I have a bad one that is bright and flashy at night right across from my condo in Atlanta. Unfortunately, due to the vagueness of the 1995 sign ordinance, "visual blight" applies not only to billboards, but to signs on businesses and other things. I agree with one of the posters that Jacksonville looks extremely dead, which is at least if not more damaging to businesses and development than looking "too alive" if you will.
Here in Atlanta, digital LED's have been applied to lots of new signs, to a new highway overpass, and to a new office building lobby. The latter two examples are almost tourist attractions now and really add a lot. The signs also make it appear like the city is 24/7 now, which is great and may have played a role in attracting more people and businesses to Midtown, Downtown, and Buckhead.
The bottom line is that the sign ordinance needs to be revised to be more specific, lenient on individual properties (only in Jax do you need to sit before several design boards and committees to beg to have a sign on your building), and smart about billboards. There is a place and a way for everything. Simple, vague bans are ineffective and a hindrance on progress.
**Finally, current digital billboards need only 1/4 to 1/3 as many LEDs as many currently use to be effective. LEDs are very efficient, cool (temp wise), and expensive. I agree with Mr. Brinton that 8 seconds is cutting it close and it should be 3 minutes, but perhaps it could be written into law how bright or how many LEDs are used at night to avoid problems. Fans would not have to be used and very little energy would be used if softer tones and less LEDs were used at night.
If you thought the signs on bus shelters was controversial, this is likely to elevate the discussion to new levels. I must say there are some compelling posts following the T-U article regarding why these signs are not good for Jacksonville, including its economy.
No need to rewrite them, I'll just quote them, starting with Bill Brinton:QuoteBy Bill Brinton | 12/13/10 - 06:42 am
To Raymond Hernandez, Jr.
I did not say that it made no sense for Jacksonville to have such a different standard from the City of Atlantic Beach, the City of Jacksonville Beach, and the City of Neptune Beach. I pointed out the inconsistency between the emphasis on aesthetics and traffic safety at the Beaches versus what will be happening on the other side of "the ditch."
In fact, I recently supported a codification/clarification of the City's current interpretation of the sign ordinance-by the both the Building Department and the Planning Department that set the change at 3 minute intervals-although a longer period would be more appropriate. At 3 minutes - this would allow 20 changes per hour. Is there any reason that 20 changes per hour is not enough? The City of Houston sets the time frame for changes at 5 minutes, 12 changes per hour, and there are over 700 electronic changing message signs operating quite well within the City of Houston.
The City of Atlantic Beach does not allow any electronic changing message devices, except for time and temperature (although most of us don't need a sign to tell us what time it is or whether it is cold outside). The City of Neptune Beach does not allow any electronic message signs (which amended its Code in May 2010). The City of Jacksonville Beach (which amended its Code in September 2010) allows electronic changeable message signs that change no more once every 24 hours.
The Clear Channel Outdoor lobbyists (and there are at least four who have registered so far, and the billboard spokesman Mr. Munz) can lobby legislators to take Jacksonville backwards and then turn their sights on the Beaches, but this City deserves better.
As for digital billboards that utilize extremely bright lighting that shines outward and operate (5,000 nits or more during the day) with changes at every 8 seconds (672-sf or 300-sf in size), these billboards will be aesthetic blight along our roadways and will pose serious concerns about traffic safety. In Durham, N.C., residents sent in over 1000 emails to their city council asking that digital billboards not be allowed, and city council voted no unanimously. The State of Michigan has imposed a moratorium on digital billboards. A court in Los Angeles struck down a "settlement agreement" between the City and Clear Channel Outdoor that allowed swap outs for digital billboards as unlawful.
I would like to debate anyone who claims that from an "appearance perspective" there will be "no difference." The truth or falsity of that claim will become quite obvious once these digital billboards go up.
The City Council has been lobbied by Clear Channel Outdoor to weaken the law to 8 seconds so that Clear Channel Outdoor can make a boatload of money at the expense of Jacksonville's beauty. From a safety standpoint, one should know that some of these television type billboards will be at signalized intersections like one on San Jose Blvd., or long interstate on-ramps such as the northbound on-ramp from University Blvd. headed north along I-95.
I hope that members of the City Council will change their mind once they are better informed. They should call the City of Houston and find out what works.
Bill Brinton
QuoteBy jdhunter | 12/13/10 - 06:32 am
From an appearance perspective there is a HUGE difference between a passive billboard seen by reflected light and a swarm of garishly colored electronic devices EMITTING LIGHT. They are UGLY and distracting. BAN them.
I recommend to all taking note of anything you see advertised on an electronic billboard and NEVER BUYING IT.
QuoteBy VoiceOfReason | 12/13/10 - 11:32 am
@smallbusiness
> It is the myopic perspective of folks like Bill Brinton, for Scenic
> Jacksonville that continue to stifle economic growth opportunities
> for the city of Jacksonville. As a result, Jacksonville will continue
> to be an unattractive, if not hostile, environment for entrepreneurs
> and small business owners considering to invest in the local
> economy.
Let me guess, you're one of these small business owners that think it's acceptable to pepper our intersections and medians with signs that advertise your business too?
Kind of ironic that you think making our city unattractive to drive through will make it more attractive for entrepreneurs. We don't really need you that bad then.
Quote
By beautyisgoodforbusiness | 12/13/10 - 02:46 pm
@ small business. Really? It would be more accurate to say that folks like Bill Brinton are working to encourage Jacksonville's economic growth. It's a well known fact in the development community that beauty is good for business. Electronic billboards that obscure vistas and contribute to light pollution are not in line with a community's aesthetic interests.
Your "smallbusiness" interests don't pertain to the electronic sign industry, do they?
Besides, the citizens of this city spoke loudly and clearly when they voted to amend the charter in order not to allow any new billboards. The sign industry sued over that amendment, and the city won. It is because of those lawsuits that most of the billboards currently existing in this city have to come down in the near future.
To allow sign companies to erect digital billboards is clearly counter to the purposes of the settlement agreement, not to mention the city charter.
P.S. @ uncluttered_streets. Right on.
Quote
By Mary Tracy | 12/13/10 - 01:24 pm
Jacksonville residents are lucky to have a smart, saavy attorney like Bill Brinton protecting the city's charm and unique visual assets, eliminating a major source of driver distraction and preventing this energy guzzling technology from sucking power from your grid.
While traditional billboards need only be lit at night, the LED digital signs are lit 24 hours a day, and in daylight hours, they consume the most energy to compete with the sun in order to be seen. In warm weather, the thousands of diodes which comprise an LED billboard get very hot so air conditioning units are imbedded in the sign.
Clear Channel does not tell decision maker that one LED billboard consumes more energy than 25 traditional billboards, or enough energy to power 30 average homes.
That Federal Highways Administration will soon release the results of a driver impact study measuring eye glance reactions to digital signs along the roadway. The highly regarded AASHTO report released in 2009, found that every study released to date (except the two funded by the billboard industry) has shown that these bright dazzling signs distract, especially youthful and elderly drivers. The 100 Driver Study found that anything that takes the driver's eyes off the road for more than two seconds dramatically increases the risk for a crash or near crash.
Throughout the country our most cherished scenic resources and hometown assets are being obscured by a blizzard of billboards-digital and standard- that have been put up despite local laws and local objections. Don't let that happen in Jacksonville, your city and its citizens deserve better !
Just checked what was on the digital billboard across from my condo. It was a tasteful advertisement with warm tones and near constant appearance. It had the snowcapped mountain with a dark blue sky and a variation between Coors cans and a few words. It was not bright or distracting. I see no problem with such ads in Jacksonville. Other ads are bright, obnoxious, distracting, and distasteful. These ads don't need to be allowed in the city, but the billboards themselves should not be banned outright due to a vaguery in the current code.
You mean I can't see an electronic billboard for:
- Boiled Peanuts
- Indian River Fruit
- No scalpel Vasectomy
- Fireworks
- Liposuction
Maybe Clear Channel could sweeten the negotiations by offering COJ free advertising on these billboards...highlight all the great civic activity here in the city...
As I said in another thread...
Quote from: Ralph W on December 27, 2010, 02:26:09 PM
Let's have some signs...
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_16463535
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_16632214
http://www.livedowntowndenver.com/LDDBlog/?p=1713
http://www.ellmanco.com/denver.aspx
I think opinion on this matters with age. Some older folks REMEMBER the natural landscape and aren't impressed with Glitzy Bling and Flash.
How do flashing billboards make us look any less like Orlando? (Think International Drive)
Clear Channel cannot get a free pass on everything. Four lobbyists... :P
I really had no idea people here had such strong opinions on signage. I guess it shouldn't surprise me.
I and other young would-be entrepeneurs will just concentrate our efforts on leaving town, I guess, and going someplace hungry and eager for independent businesses. It's clear there's no future here, except for people who want to be left alone to watch TV or eat at a chain restaurant (as long as it isn't located downtown).
One thing that I always felt made Jax stand out in a good way, was the relative lack of billboards. Billboard-free Butler Blvd. is a prime example to that.
Billboard are visual pollution and add absolutely nothing to a city's vitality, IMO. Times Square is the exception that proves the rule. Caving in to crass commercialism is not a virtue. Spend some time in billboard-free Colorado and then cross the line into Wyoming.
Wouldn't a city be better served by advertising dollars being spent in ways that will support the local newspapers, magazines, sport teams, TV statiions, online services like MJ and other sources?
I think we need to be clear on "signage". I despise billboards but am in favor of signage on buildings/sandwich boards, etc. If these digital billboards were simple and clean, more of a logo with contact info, that would be one thing, but I don't imagine that will be the case. At an 8 second turn over, we are effectively talking about televisions on the side of the road...
I think that the billboards down I-4 in Orlando, many of them digital, don't speak well of that City. It looks honky-tonk to me. But, since Orlando is an everyman tourists capital, it may look a little less out of place. Similarly, that's why signs may also work for Las Vegas and Times Square. I also see "newer" parts of International drive featuring more green and higher quality aesthetics than the older sections and wonder if Orlando hasn't moved to reign in some of its signage.
For those who support tourism here, we should decide what our niche is. If it is ecotourism, upscale resorts, corporate meeting/executive oriented, etc., I think that clientele is looking for less outward commercialism, not more. I don't think the folks in Ponte Vedra or Amelia Island would think billboards would be necessary to improve their economies.
If the rules are too strict in the minds of some for downtown, then create an urban zone, and customize something "tasteful" and appropriate for that. Rather than reinvent the wheel, why don't we look at what some urban areas we "admire" are doing. Personally, I would rather see us prioritize more greenery downtown than signs and believe that would do more to attract people.
Keep in mind, too, the new "signs on the go" are to be found on smartphones. With ads oriented in real time around where you are standing that you "seek out", advertisers may be less enamored with billboards in the future anyway.
Quote from: stjr on December 28, 2010, 12:46:33 PM
If the rules are too strict in the minds of some for downtown, then create an urban zone, and customize something "tasteful" and appropriate for that. Rather than reinvent the wheel, why don't we look at what some urban areas we "admire" are doing. Personally, I would rather see us prioritize more greenery downtown than signs and believe that would do more to attract people.
I think I feel exactly the opposite to this. I don't think prioritizing greenery downtown is going to attract anybody, especially in a city as big as Jax and as full of park spaces that are easier to get to and offer ample parking. What are people going to do with greenery? Walk around and look at it? Then drive back to the Southside or Riverside for lunch. Plus you have the city paying to install greenery that, let's face it, is going to be neglected (have you seen how the grassy medians near the urban core are maintained) and eventually give a zombie apocalypse look to downtown.
Signage is one of those things that, in my opinion (I guess I have to add that in there), adds the appearance of vitality to an area. Younger people such as myself and my peers see signage and think, "gee, there are restaurants and interesting shops in this area. There are things other than sterile half empty office buildings and parking garages."
I will agree that billboards plastered along, say, JTB or the long stretches of I-95 surrounded by foliage are less than desirable. But as far as downtown Jax is concerned, there is nothing pristine down there that restricting signage is going to protect. You aren't going to have a "natural Florida" bustling downtown area. You have Confederate Park and other existing areas that can be cleaned and maintained to provide that natural feel. Downtown desperately needs some kind of injection of urban life and vitality.
As it is, it looks like someplace where middle aged overweight white guys (yeah, I said it! I'll be one myself in fifteen or 20 years!) go to hang out in their office buildings from 9 to 5, then lock the place up and take the keys with 'em when they leave. It looks like a giant office park, not an urban environment.
Sort of like say UNF of the 1990s and 2000s compared to, oh, Georgia Tech or George Washington University.
Street signs that scroll, change every 8 seconds approved by Jacksonville City Council
By Steve Patterson
Jacksonville's City Council approved electronic sign rules Tuesday that had divided business interests and some neighborhood leaders who said roadways would become uglier and more dangerous.
The language that split the groups will allow sign messages to change every eight seconds and to feature "scrolling" announcements that crawl across a screen.
Related: Florida gave away 2,094 state-owned trees to make room for billboards
City officials once interpreted Jacksonville's sign laws as allowing changes every three minutes but later concluded that standard was unenforceable because of garbled wording.
Advocates said the new measure, Bill 2010-900, prevents rapid-fire changes but left businesses, schools and churches that owned electric signs flexibility to use them effectively.
"I think we should caution ourselves not to over-regulate. This is reasonable regulation," said Councilman Dick Brown , the bill's sponsor.
His bill was supported in earlier hearings by the advertising industry and a range of small businesses, some of whom said they need to change their messages frequently to convey long messages to passing motorists.
Advocates for stronger restrictions won support from many neighborhood civic groups and all six of the city-organized Citizen Planning Advisory Committees, called CPACs. Ninety-nine out of 100 people sitting on CPACs citywide endorsed a three-minute hold on sign changes and a ban on scrolling.
"I really think it is a disservice to the folks who serve on those organizations to disregard their opinion," argued Councilman John Crescimbeni , who then tried unsuccessfully to gather votes for a one-minute standard.
An effort by Councilman Bill Bishop to forbid scrolling messages also failed. Critics say scrolling signs are designed to keep a driver's eyes on the signs, making them traffic hazards.
A leading sign-control advocate, attorney Bill Brinton , said after the meeting he planned to pursue new talks with community groups, businesses and faith groups about the potential for a grassroots initiative to tighten the rules.
The measure passed 14-5, with votes against it coming from Bishop, Crescimbeni, Kevin Hyde, Glorious Johnson and Jack Webb.
Here's the link: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-04-12/story/street-signs-scroll-change-every-8-seconds-approved-jacksonville-city
Is the city also considering lifting the limit on billboards in town?
Quote from: Jdog on April 13, 2011, 01:33:13 PM
Here's the link: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-04-12/story/street-signs-scroll-change-every-8-seconds-approved-jacksonville-city
Is the city also considering lifting the limit on billboards in town?
Hope so. Advertising is very important for businesses to survive and grow.
My favorite comment from the usual gang of idiots commenting on TU articles: "The city could start looking like Times Square at some point."
GOD FORBID!!!
Now lets add some digital advertising in Downtown! scrolling signs, billboards, lights, etc!
Yeah, baby! Just like the Vegas strip.
When I am a tourist in other cities, the overabundance of signage is a real turn off for me, especially the overly "active" signs just approved (not to mention the horrid digital ones). I want to see and experience an ambiance that is unique to the city or place that I visit and that conveys a special cultural, historical, and/or aesthetic flavor worth savoring. Gaudy and excessive signage both masks and distracts from doing so unless the signage itself is the attraction as in Times Square. (Note that the rest of NYC does not allow for such excesses. If it did, every street would look like every other and all of NYC's distinctive nooks and crannies would fade away.)
The value of a sign is relative to its environment. Create a sign arms race and no sign will stand out. It will all just be a mindless blur and advertisers will mostly waste their money. Look at the flood of TV commercials running in 5 to 7 minute blocks and tell me they are as effective as ads from 30 years ago when there were far fewer commercials competing for attention. Times Square is loaded with signs but other than a handful of "signature signs" the rest amount to nothing more than a hodgepodge of color and words, none all that distinguishable from any other. When Jax had thousands of plastic portable blinking sign boards lining its streets, it was nothing but blight. No one could possibly have read (much less seen given one sign often obscured the next) all the material while driving 40 plus mph.
Eliminating "smokestacks" was once considered anti-business and anti-economic development, but show me any place in our country today that invites them in wholeheartedly. Just as addressing smokestacks was necessary to deal with air pollution, sign regulation is necessary to deal with visual pollution.
By the way, I was leaving the Whole Foods shopping center in Mandarin the other day and they had a full color digital sign by the highway with an apparent "photograph" of customers at their store. I remember it because I was thinking "Do I "recognize" any of these people?" Imagine the eyes off the road with such signs on giant digital billboards cropping up all over Jax.
As to the City Council passing this over the objections of the CPAC's, just follow the money. Who lobbied for the sign industry? Who gave how much to which City Council reps? Maybe Peyton will listen to the little people and veto this bill. It is not necessary to promote businesses other than those that make and sell signs.
P.S. I put my money where my mouth is on this one. I had the chance to buy one of those digital, flashing/scrolling signs and decided the old fashion sign board would do better conveying my messages. No regrets and saved thousands on the cost of the sign and the power bill to keep it running. And, when everyone else's is flashing blah red on black, mine will stand out for what it is NOT doing! ;)
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?
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
Quote from: fsujax on April 13, 2011, 02:13:38 PM
Now lets add some digital advertising in Downtown! scrolling signs, billboards, lights, etc!
I don't like billboards unless I'm in the middle of BFE on America's boring Interstate Highways. Seeing a billboard that says "BEST WESTERN EXIT 47 22 MILES" can be sweet... Sweetest billboard I EVER saw was one night about 1 am, eastbound in a blinding snow storm coming into Gallup, New Mexico. "COFFEE", "BED", "FOOD", oh and what the hell, Anasazi Silver Jewelery for the number one lady.
(http://fineartamerica.com/images-medium/art-deco-neon-ocean-blvd-south-beach-miami-george-oze.jpg)
And instead all we have are photographs of all those old neon signs and the beautiful buildings they graced.
Quote from: cityimrov on April 13, 2011, 09:58:13 PM
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.
QuoteAs 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!
Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 13, 2011, 10:05:20 PM
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?
Quote from: stjr on April 14, 2011, 12:56:32 AM
Quote from: cityimrov on April 13, 2011, 09:58:13 PM
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?
^Yes
Quote from: cityimrov on April 14, 2011, 03:57:02 PMBut 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.
Quote from: Jdog on April 14, 2011, 08:58:53 AM
Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 13, 2011, 10:05:20 PM
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
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.
The whole sign ordinance should be thrown out and rebuilt. What was standard in 1980s is obviously not the standard now.
The digital billboards are terribly bright at night, especially if your window has a direct view.
Quote from: Bativac on April 14, 2011, 04:58:47 PM
Quote from: cityimrov on April 14, 2011, 03:57:02 PMBut 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
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.
There a new digital billboard up off of 95-N between University and Emerson. Looks very cool.
I just drove through there on sunday and didn't even notice it.
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.
Quote from: Jason on June 07, 2011, 10:17:37 AM
I just drove through there on sunday and didn't even notice it.
I think they just turned it on. And to the other comment, Pristine area or not, it is time for Jacksonville to step into the 21 century. We have been behind too long on things other cities start doing 15 years ago.
I live in a condo off Beach Blvd in eyesight of where they recently put up the Digi Billboard. I was ever so slightly worried that it would bother me at night (i can see it from my bedroom), but it hasn't bothered me a bit. Hell, I don't even know if its on at nighttime!
But it looks good when I drive by in the morning! I hope the Jags use it during the season to put up the live score, now that'd be sweet!
Just saw the one at I-95 and University. I think they look great!
Something as simple Digital Billboards being a battle, show how Jacksonville's outdated policies has held this city back. hopefully Mr. Brown can work on some of our policies governing DT as well to make it more business friendly. He stated that was one of his goals.
I think they are distracting, and who needs more distracted drivers? The one at University and I-95 caught my eye today and distracted me. But now that I know it's there, I can ignore it like I do the rest of the billboards...unless I'm stuck in a traffic jam. :-)
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on June 07, 2011, 02:07:09 PM
I think they are distracting, and who needs more distracted drivers? The one at University and I-95 caught my eye today and distracted me. But now that I know it's there, I can ignore it like I do the rest of the billboards...unless I'm stuck in a traffic jam. :-)
LOL me too. I was distracted this time because its new. Tomorrow morning I probably wont even look over there. LOL