Got this via email this morning:
QuoteDear Friends,
We hope you will take advantage of the attached invitation, and join us as we celebrate the 25th Anniversary of the 1987 Jacksonville Charter Amendment. A truly grassroots effort passed overwhelmingly by voters, the amendment prohibited new billboards and resulted in the removal of over 1,100 standing billboards. This historic moment in Jacksonville's history earned national environmental and beautification awards.
In honor of this significant event, the Jacksonville Film Fest will feature a special, opening night screening of the documentary film This Space Available, which depicts the global grassroots battle against visual pollution. The film was shot on five continents, and has been shown in London, New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Moscow, Toronto, and Washington, D.C. We believe you will be impressed with this compelling film, by the young director, Gwenaelle Gobe.
Please join us for Opening Night, on Thursday, November 1, 2012, at the Florida Theatre, as we recognize those involved in Jacksonville's landmark amendment.
Please feel free to forward this to people you believe might be interested.
Hope to see you there!
http://www.scenicjacksonville.org/
Tickets are $10
Perhaps they could advertise this event on the enchaining digital billboard on I-95 at the University Blvd. exit or one of the ever so many other digital billboards around town.
visual polution?
Some of us will be wearing black arm bands mourning the loss of private property rights and freedom of commercial speech. :(
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on October 12, 2012, 11:55:46 AM
Some of us will be wearing black arm bands mourning the loss of private property rights and freedom of commercial speech. :(
If a community decides collectively that billboards do not meet the community's standards for itself, that is their right. It's no different than zoning laws, which nearly every city has. The billboards would not be viable to start with, without the community's funding of the road/highway in question.
Communities definitely have the will to enact standards and have been given that power by the courts but I'm not aware of any community "rights" in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Does the community really have a "compelling interest" in protecting people from being exposed to advertising that justifies diminishing the rights and freedom of advertisers? I don't think so.
Agree with UL.
Not to poop on the documentary, but I honestly love the new electronic billboards. They are sleek and sometimes even sport helpful rolling public service announcements.
I honestly wish there were many more around town.
There is a clear difference between tacky Stucky's/ Cafe Riske billboards and clean, clear uniform billboard (such as the new electronic billboards).
With the exception that they must be on commercial property facing commerical traffic, I don't think billboards would necessarily fall specifically into zoning law, but rather into building codes. Example: I am ok if the coummunity says all buildings have to have brick facade or certain roofing patterns, just as long as I have the right to build my building. Same thoughts about the billboards. As long as they are tactful, uniform and pleasant, then I would really like to see more of them.
Imagine what Times Square or Las Vegas would look like if we tried to get rid of all visual pollution.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on October 12, 2012, 03:46:10 PM
Communities definitely have the will to enact standards and have been given that power by the courts but I'm not aware of any community "rights" in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Does the community really have a "compelling interest" in protecting people from being exposed to advertising that justifies diminishing the rights and freedom of advertisers? I don't think so.
I don't think billboards existed in the 1700's. We were given a Constitution that allows for the evolving world we live in. The Constitution set up the basic components and procedures of government, and established certain limitations and exclusions.
It set the foundation for modern day governing for generations to come, by allowing legislation to fill in the blanks, that could change as science and technology evolved.
The Constitution doesn't prescribe or in any way mention National parks either. Every acre of National Parks is land that could be in private hands. Is their a 'compelling interest' in preventing a railroad track from running through the Grand Canyon (which was considered)? I think there is. Is their a 'compelling interest' in keeping the landscape from being overrun with visual blight ? I think there is. Considering the overwhelming majority voted for this amendment, I don't seem to be alone in that regard.
Drive from Colorado (no billboards) to Wyoming (lots of billboards) and you see a big difference in appearance.
Quote from: vicupstate on October 12, 2012, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on October 12, 2012, 03:46:10 PM
Communities definitely have the will to enact standards and have been given that power by the courts but I'm not aware of any community "rights" in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Does the community really have a "compelling interest" in protecting people from being exposed to advertising that justifies diminishing the rights and freedom of advertisers? I don't think so.
I don't think billboards existed in the 1700's. We were given a Constitution that allows for the evolving world we live in. The Constitution set up the basic components and procedures of government, and established certain limitations and exclusions.
It set the foundation for modern day governing for generations to come, by allowing legislation to fill in the blanks, that could change as science and technology evolved.
The Constitution doesn't prescribe or in any way mention National parks either. Every acre of National Parks is land that could be in private hands. Is their a 'compelling interest' in preventing a railroad track from running through the Grand Canyon (which was considered)? I think there is. Is their a 'compelling interest' in keeping the landscape from being overrun with visual blight ? I think there is. Considering the overwhelming majority voted for this amendment, I don't seem to be alone in that regard.
Drive from Colorado (no billboards) to Wyoming (lots of billboards) and you see a big difference in appearance.
There's no question but that constitutional jurisprudence favors your view. I think that the constitution lists specific powers for government and the courts have gradually permitted many more powers mostly under the commerce clause. To me the number one purpose of government above all else is to protect individual rights and freedoms. Yes, security is important but not as important to me, so naturally conformity and aesthetics aren't as important either. I don't think that government should diminish someone's rights and freedoms unless someone else is being harmed. Who is being harmed by a billboard?