Draft Copy of the web site of a group opposed to the Charter change: link will be posted when site goes live.
QuoteSTOP THE BILLBOARD SCAM!!
The Jacksonville City Council is considering a bill that would gut the billboard charter amendment approved overwhelming by the voters in 1987. That citizens initiative stopped the construction of new billboards and caused the removal of hundreds of billboards from Jacksonville roadways.
This special interest legislation, drafted by the attorney for Clear Channel Outdoor and introduced by Council Member Clark, would among other things:
• Nullify the action of voters and change Jacksonville from a city with one of the best billboard laws in the country to the one of the worst.
• Allow new billboards to be erected on highways that have always been billboard free, such as Butler Boulevard, SR 9A, Wonderwood Connector and Old St. Augustine Road.
• Bring back billboards on roads where they have been or will be eliminated, such as Airport Road, all of downtown, Arlington Expressway, Hendricks Avenue and most of Roosevelt Boulevard and San Jose Boulevard.
• Allow all new billboard to be digital billboards, making Jacksonville the first city in Florida, if not the nation, to do so.
• Allow billboards in the least intensive commercial zoning districts, such as neighborhood commercial and professional office uses.
• Allow billboards directly across the street from single-family homes.
• Allow billboards on public property.
• Allow up to 12 billboards per mile.
• Increase the allowed size of billboards, including add-ons, to 874 square feet.
• Allow all new billboards to be 65 feet high.
• Save the billboard industry (and cost taxpayers) thousand of dollars by eliminating annual permit fees for billboards.
• Eliminate the right of citizens to bring lawsuits to enforce the billboard charter amendment.
• Eliminate $500 per day fines for illegal billboards.
• Eliminate traffic safety as a basis in the charter for regulating billboards
In short, this bill (Ordinance 2013-493) could hardly be worse. And, it will become law in the next few weeks unless people like you take action to stop it.
Please pass the message on to your friends and associates right away. Time is of the essence!
The Clear Channel lawyers are threatening the City with a $50 Million claim in a lawsuit they have no chance of winning, but that will cost a lot of money to litigate. They are trying to scare some Council members and give other members cover for voting for this horrible bill.
The Council caved to the billboard industry in 1987 and would not act which is why it took a Citizen's Initiative and petition drive to put it on the ballot where it was overwhelmingly approved by the people.
If corporations are people, then Clear Channel, which is largely owned by Bain Capital, is an evil person. Bain seems to be the center of an Axis of Corporate Evil.
Anyone notice that terrible PR campaign by the billboard industry lately? A couple of the slogans I've seen are "Billboards help find missing children" and "Billboards warn you about the weather". I've seen a few others, but can't remember off the top of my head.
Can someone please link a copy of the bill?
http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJBillList.asp?Bill=2013-0493
see if this works...23 pages
Quote from: CityLife on August 01, 2013, 04:37:42 PM
Anyone notice that terrible PR campaign by the billboard industry lately? A couple of the slogans I've seen are "Billboards help find missing children" and "Billboards warn you about the weather". I've seen a few others, but can't remember off the top of my head.
Clear Channel is using the offer of free advertising to civic and non-profit groups to buy off any opposition they might have. At eight seconds per view on the digital billboards, they can afford to do this since the message can change 10,000 time per day.
Responsible non-profits like the Riverkeeper have pledged not to use the digital billboards.
Quote from: m74reeves on August 01, 2013, 04:45:56 PM
http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJBillList.asp?Bill=2013-0493
see if this works...23 pages
It did. Thanks!
No, Stephen. This is a part of a nationwide push on the part of the outdoor advertising industry to remove all restrictions on outdoor advertising. Bill's push back has always been against the nose of the camel.
Miami-Dade is actually allowing their government buildings to be wrapped in huge advertisements for about $40K per year in official payment and, this being Miami, and undisclosed amount of payment to elected officials.
Now that I think about it, though, wrapping the new courthouse in a Budweiser ad might actually improve the appearance. But that's another topic.
a bus shelter is one thing. a "672 sqaure foot" sign is another.
my favorite part of proposed ordinance is how often the phrase "off-site outdoor advertising offers significant benefits to the public health, safety and welfare" is used.
If you have driven through states that do not allow outdoor advertising at all, you would not have to decide. They are wonderful, peaceful and you can see the natural beauty of the countryside and the cities.
There is a reason that all new subdivisions are built with all of their electric lines underground.
If there were trucks with loudspeakers on them driving through your streets blaring advertising so loudly that you could not ignore it how would you feel about it? Outdoor advertising is the visual equivalent. I really don't like being shouted at through my eyes.
Another aspect of outdoor advertising is that they are using a publicly owned space for their private purpose without compensating each of us for it. Think of the bottled water companies pumping water out of the Floridan Aquifer for free, bottling it and selling it to us. Same difference.
I can avoid advertising in the paper. I turn the volume down during ads on TV. I throw away the inserts in the Sunday papers unread and throw away the junk mail in my mailbox. The billboards cannot be avoided which is why the billboard industry is so ravenous for our roads and streets. Free eyeballs!
They will lie, cheat, bribe, sue to push their messages in our faces whether we want them there or not.
The two ugliest things in our built environment are billboards and utility lines on poles. We are so used to the poles and lines that we really don't see them anymore, but the billboards change and are colorful and cannot be ignored. Not being ignored is their purpose.
Some of us remember how ugly the city was with billboards and flashing signs in front of every laundromat. Let's not go back to those days in Jacksonville.
Please.
Sprawl is the ugliest thing to me in this city. For example, although I have no idea of how many billboards line this stretch, University Boulevard between Philips and Beach is one of the ugliest corridors in town. Also, I'm not impressed by newer roadway projects like Airport Center Drive. Landscaping highway medians with trees instead of using them to provide shade for pedestrians makes no sense to me.
Getting off that soapbox, when it comes to billboards, generally I've never had a problem with them. To me, they're another part of a built environment that features massive asphalt surface lots, wide roads, vacant strip malls, aging motels and fast food restaurants. I wasn't in Jax to see whatever resulted in the continued sign/billboard fights that take place today, so I can't say what's been done so far is a negative or positive.
Nevertheless, although I haven't really paid attention to this legislation I'd be lying if I said I didn't find stuff like this attractive and was jealous that we can't have similar signage in certain locations.
(http://www.fontshop.com/images/features/fontmag/02_news/02_news_times_square.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQgcBg4AXUP3actLPcnTi_nhhIvBbNuanCdIEL0mDOjEObocEESyA)
(http://www.gmanmusic.com/images/g_time_board_sm.jpg)
First thing is full disclosure: I am a member of City Beautiful, and advocacy group which Bill Brinton headed – and still heads in spirit. Among other things we do is to bring to the attention of the City, the JEA, the DOT, and other governmental folks, visual pollution in the area. Visual pollution includes the following in city right of ways: rusted fire hydrants, broken sidewalks, graffiti, abandoned cars, dead trees, and so on.
Second thing is that I think the City looks awful enough without a proliferation of the likenesses of Messrs. Farah (You can call me Eddie/Chuck – even though we're really very big shots); Harrell, Morgan, et al. Speaking of the courthouse, right behind it is a big building owned by AT&T (a firm that has more than a few dollars in its coffers), the landscaping of which is overrun by weeds. You would think that a business with that kind of wherewithal could spend a few bucks in conveying a positive image, not a negative one. I suspect that a lot of the houses in Springfield that were torn down looked like crap, so we lost some history and gained some reduction in ugly.
The settlement reached with the billboard industry prohibited electronic ones, but enough money is now at stake for Clear Channel and its fellow travelers, that they have begun erecting them all over town. Do they have some public interest messages such as Amber Alerts? Sure. It's called greasing the palms. Dog Walker is absolutely correct: If we don't get the nose of the camel out of the tent the whole animal soon will be in it.
I've opined before on this site about billboards and asked if they really influence anyone. Does anyone with a medical emergency tell the EMS folks to take them to hospital A even though B may be closer? Does anyone really believe Budweiser is the King of Beers? Does anyone think they will even get to see Eddie (in between commercial "takes"), much less call him by name?
Go to Vermont and see what a state looks like that allows no billboards. Sure it's not quite as easy to find Burger King – god forbid – but the place looks pristine. If the bill introduced in Council is approved it will be one of the lily-livered body's biggest black eyes. For shame for even introducing it.
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 01, 2013, 06:23:51 PM
If you have driven through states that do not allow outdoor advertising at all, you would not have to decide. They are wonderful, peaceful and you can see the natural beauty of the countryside and the cities.
There is a reason that all new subdivisions are built with all of their electric lines underground.
If there were trucks with loudspeakers on them driving through your streets blaring advertising so loudly that you could not ignore it how would you feel about it? Outdoor advertising is the visual equivalent. I really don't like being shouted at through my eyes.
Another aspect of outdoor advertising is that they are using a publicly owned space for their private purpose without compensating each of us for it. Think of the bottled water companies pumping water out of the Floridan Aquifer for free, bottling it and selling it to us. Same difference.
I can avoid advertising in the paper. I turn the volume down during ads on TV. I throw away the inserts in the Sunday papers unread and throw away the junk mail in my mailbox. The billboards cannot be avoided which is why the billboard industry is so ravenous for our roads and streets. Free eyeballs!
They will lie, cheat, bribe, sue to push their messages in our faces whether we want them there or not.
The two ugliest things in our built environment are billboards and utility lines on poles. We are so used to the poles and lines that we really don't see them anymore, but the billboards change and are colorful and cannot be ignored. Not being ignored is their purpose.
Some of us remember how ugly the city was with billboards and flashing signs in front of every laundromat. Let's not go back to those days in Jacksonville.
Please.
+1,000
Dogwalker is right about states that don't allow these. Vermont and Colorado being two. Once you pass into Wyoming from Colorado, it is a very stark and negative change.
One of the things that has always appealed to me the most about Jax, is the lack of billboard clutter. Butler Blvd. will look like shit with these things every five feet, one on top of the other, and I assure you, that IS what will happen.
SC has been covered in these things, especially since our Whore Legislature made local laws virtually impotent, thanks to the massive increase in campaign contributions from the Outdoor Advertising industry.
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 thought council gave JTA the approval to allow bus shelters with ads on them. The issue with JTA is an RFP was issued, only one company responded and JTA didn't want to go with them. Personally, I'd like to see JTA reissue a modified bus shelter RFP that attracts more respondents.
I have seen JTA shelters with ads. Maybe they are selling the ad space themselves, instead of through a contractor? I don't have a problem with ad-shelters, but do have a problem with the return and expansion of billboards. They are ugly. They serve to purpose, except to make money for the billboard companies - and perhaps provide employment for soon-to-be-ex-council members.
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.
Quote from: Apache on August 01, 2013, 11:24:24 PM
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?
Quote from: Apache on August 01, 2013, 11:38:04 PM
Quote from: CityLife on August 01, 2013, 11:33:43 PM
Quote from: Apache on August 01, 2013, 11:24:24 PM
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?
Quote from: Apache on August 01, 2013, 11:47:51 PM
Quote from: CityLife on August 01, 2013, 11:33:43 PM
Quote from: Apache on August 01, 2013, 11:24:24 PM
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....
Quote from: CityLife on August 01, 2013, 11:13:15 PM
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?
Quote from: stephendare on August 01, 2013, 09:20:24 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on August 01, 2013, 08:36:51 PM
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.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 02, 2013, 12:34:41 AM
Quote from: CityLife on August 01, 2013, 11:13:15 PM
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.
Quote from: vicupstate on August 02, 2013, 04:49:03 AM
Quote from: stephendare on August 01, 2013, 09:20:24 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on August 01, 2013, 08:36:51 PM
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).
QuoteSadly, 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!
Quote from: GatorNation on August 02, 2013, 01:33:33 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on August 02, 2013, 04:49:03 AM
Quote from: stephendare on August 01, 2013, 09:20:24 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on August 01, 2013, 08:36:51 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: CityLife on August 02, 2013, 08:30:40 AMStrip 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.
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.
Quote from: GatorNation on August 02, 2013, 01:33:33 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on August 02, 2013, 04:49:03 AM
Quote from: stephendare on August 01, 2013, 09:20:24 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on August 01, 2013, 08:36:51 PM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on August 03, 2013, 10:37:11 AM
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
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.
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?
Beauty and ugliness are in the eye of the beholder. I think advertising and profitable businesses are beautiful. I would love to see downtown Jax with the same kind of signage it had in that 1942 era video recently posted or like the Las Vegas strip.
Quote from: stephendare on August 03, 2013, 11:01:36 AM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 03, 2013, 10:55:49 AM
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.
I feel the same way for people speaking for why i helped campaign for the ordinance, Charles---along with many of the people who worked for it as well.
And while I cannot presume to speak for you personally, certainly you would not claim that I am wrong about what most of the campaign centered on, Ubiquity of the trailer signs and too many of the Billboards.
But almost every photo used by the campaign centered on the 'visual blight' along Arlington Road and Atlantic Boulevard.
Would you disagree with that?
Heh, your memory is certainly better than mine - I do not remember what the campaign nearly two decades ago focused on. I do recall that the trailer signs were a big part of the problem, and probably the proverbial back-breaking straw. But, I was also aware the Charter Amendment would reduce the number of billboards. From summaries I've seen of the Billboard Industry Drafted bill, it would open up several roadways that do not currently have billboards - JTB, for example - to new billboards. I don't see how that would not increase the number of billboards over what is out there now. And comparing the number to what is out there now is the only relevant measure; it makes no sense to compare what will be allowed under the new ordinance to some arbitrary date in the past. Most people don't remember what the city looked like in 1987.
Oh, and I do think there should be some flexibility in the ordinance, especially in areas like downtown. But I do not want to see more billboards, whether traditional or the giant-TV type.
Perhaps the proposed ordinance could be amended to say that if any current members of City Council take jobs in the billboard industry within (say) 4 years after leaving office - the new ordinance becomes null and void, and all billboards erected under it must come down without compensation. If the council members "aren't doing anything wrong" - why should they, or the billboard industry, object?
Quote from: stephendare on August 03, 2013, 10:49:26 AM
Here is a somewhat favorable account of the history of the billboard ordinance, from Bill Brinton's site:
QuoteIn 1987, a citizens' initiative in Jacksonville, Florida led to a Jacksonville City
Charter Amendment which banned the further construction of billboards and set a 5-year
amortization for the removal of billboards along all roadways other than the federal
interstate and federal primary-aid highways. [For a discussion why billboards along federal
roads receive special treatment, see The Great Billboard Double Cross, which appeared
in Readers Digest in 1985].
The billboard industry had effectively thwarted a billboard reform effort before the
City Council through lobbying tactics that were later called into question. One city council
member noted that he had never seen anything like it. An initial effort at passing any
reform legislation failed in August, 1986. In February, 1987, the City Council finally
passed a new sign ordinance but the provisions affecting offsite advertising were very
weak. More than two years had been spent by numerous organizations and individual
citizens in crafting reform legislation, but the final product fell far short of the
recommendations called for by citizens throughout the community.
In March, 1987, Capsigns, Inc. (now Scenic Jacksonville, Inc.) was formed to
educate citizens on more effective sign control (etc.). Capsigns, Inc. sponsored a citizens'
initiative to amend the City Charter to add a new section entitled "Offsite Commercial
Billboard Ban."
More than 17,000 petitions were collected and verified in April, 1987. The ballot
referendum question was placed before the electorate at the City's general election on May
26, 1987. The referendum was approved with 59% of the vote.
as you can see, it was pretty limited.
The paper was kindof in a compromised position when it came to coverage of the subject since they were corporate siblings of Naegle, the largest billboard company of the time. Editorially they were hamstrung in discussing the issue effectively, I think.
But it repeatedly failed to pass on both a federal and a local level until the referendum, and what people were banning during that campaign was the trashy roadside trailer signs. They really were ugly and ubiquitous.
Interesting. So, according to Bill Brinton, the electorate did
not vote to ban all billboards in Jacksonville?
I wasn't here in 1987, so I can't speak to the referendum campaign or the trailer signs. Do you have any photos of those? What did they advertise (maybe car dealerships)?
Thank you, GatorNation - I had missed that the post asserted that Bill Brinton said the referendum did not ban all billboards. The only exception he mentions are " federal interstate and federal primary-aid highways." The reason for that is the national billboard industry got provisions written into federal highway law, and Lady Bird Johnson's Highway Beautification Act that require significant compensation to billboard companies for any signs removed from these federal-aid roads. State DOTs have better things to spend their money on than to purchase billboards at a premium.
The trailer signs were everywhere - I think Stephen referred to them as ubiquitous, an apt term. They advertised everything. A strip shopping center with 10 storefronts would have 10 of these out front - one for each tenant. Some had flashing arrows (incandescent spotlights), some did not. Unless the shop-keeper kept up with the sign, the letters would fall off, or be re-arranged by helpful types. They were ugly.
Quote from: vicupstate on August 03, 2013, 10:29:54 AM
Quote from: GatorNation on August 02, 2013, 01:33:33 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on August 02, 2013, 04:49:03 AM
Quote from: stephendare on August 01, 2013, 09:20:24 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on August 01, 2013, 08:36:51 PM
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.
I completely agree with your statement that all communities have a right to collectively set standards for themselves. That's essentially the fundamental purpose of a zoning code . . . to set the collectively-agreed upon development standards for a community. It seems to me that this should be the focus of the debate here: What types of development standards does the legislation propose for billboards in Jax, and what does the community think is reasonable?
I've only skimmed the contents of the bill, but I'll take a closer look at it this weekend and try to identify exactly what is being proposed. According to the initial post in this thread (which included the "Armageddon Is Here" fact sheet), the legislation will transform JTB into another Blanding Boulevard. If that's truly the case, I can't imagine anyone (other than the billboard industry) supporting such a proposal.
Again, however, I believe that campaigns -- whether they be political or commercial -- are just that . . . an attempt to persuade you to act (or react) in a certain manner. The only way to determine the truth of the claims is to examine the statements more closely. For example, when the makers of Listerine proclaim that "Listerine fights bad breath," does that mean Listerine will stop you from having bad breath? Of course not, but the ad is designed to create the impression that it does. When Secret claims that its deodorant is "Strong enough for a man but made for a woman," does that mean the deodorant is effective? No, it simply states that they have designed their product for a woman. The point here is that both sides of this debate (or any debate) will have arguments . . . but there is only one set of facts.
QuoteThe trailer signs were everywhere - I think Stephen referred to them as ubiquitous, an apt term. They advertised everything. A strip shopping center with 10 storefronts would have 10 of these out front - one for each tenant. Some had flashing arrows (incandescent spotlights), some did not. Unless the shop-keeper kept up with the sign, the letters would fall off, or be re-arranged by helpful types. They were ugly.
I remember those well and do not mourn their loss.
However, limiting that type of visual blight has now spilled over to limiting things like A-frame signs downtown and public art murals. Clearly, those things are very different from each other.
But, I don't think the answer to A-frame signs downtown or public art murals is allow the wholesale expansion of billboards in areas that have never had them, and their return to areas where they have been removed. The current legislation has nothing to do with A-frames downtown or public murals. It has everything to do with the greed of the billboard companies, and those in their thrall.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on August 03, 2013, 11:12:34 AM
Beauty and ugliness are in the eye of the beholder. I think advertising and profitable businesses are beautiful. I would love to see downtown Jax with the same kind of signage it had in that 1942 era video recently posted or like the Las Vegas strip.
See your point UL. Actually, and I didn't even think about this, my last post was referring to the billboards of the suburbs, and not in the areas in and near the city core.
So, upon thinking about it more, it would seem more appropriate to have less of a restriction on billboards and signs in and around the core because, if done with some artistic quality and class, the billboard/sign could add to overall vibrancy in the city core. For example, and this is to an extreme, I was in Manhattan around 2002, and the place was lit up with all types of signage, making for a more interesting environment.
So, maybe a compromise would include a core with much less restrictions as compared to the suburbs, and the main arteries like U. S. 17, Beach, Butler etc.
whoosh
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 03, 2013, 07:53:13 PM
whoosh
CH.... What does "whoosh" mean? I'm totally ignorant.. really. ???
I thought that part of urbanlibertarian's point was the state of disrepair of the signs on the Roosevelt Chamblin's store.
From the Urban Dictionary:
"Whoosh - Indicates that the joke just told was too sophisticated for the listener and has gone "way over their head". "
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whoosh
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 03, 2013, 08:43:23 PM
I thought that part of urbanlibertarian's point was the state of disrepair of the signs on the Roosevelt Chamblin's store.
From the Urban Dictionary:
"Whoosh - Indicates that the joke just told was too sophisticated for the listener and has gone "way over their head". "
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whoosh
Thanks CH. These days, the old styrofoam letters don't hold up in wind gusts. A letter falls down and breaks about once every six months. We will soon paint the building and make new letters. My maintenance man is busy with roofs, shelving, fences, air conditioners, lighting, grass... etc. Owning "things" is not as pretty as it seems.
I suppose the lettering on the building is sort of a billboard. But yes, its time to paint and renew the entire front. Those styrofoam letters have been there since I bought the building in 1991.
And Stephen.... I still see people taking photos of Thurston's mural. Its a big asset to the block. I like the fantasy theme.
But, are the excesses of the sign fanatics (opposing murals) reason to allow a wholesale expansion of billboards? I think you can oppose the Clarke/Billboard Industry bill AND work for reform of the existing ordinance.
Some quick Google search shows estimates between 400,000 and 500,000 billboards nationwide, but no indication of whether that is going up or down. One industry source said that 1% are now digital. The Scenic America site (anti-billboard) claims the number is growing by 5,000 to 15,000 a year, but the data are old. They also quote a 1991 estimate of 400,000 signs in 1991. If correct, that would mean very little growth. Or, perhaps there was an increase for several years, followed by a decline? Four states completely ban billboards: Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, and Maine
Scenic America: http://www.scenic.org/billboards-a-sign-control/highway-beautification-act/117-hba-facts-a-figures
Billboard industry site: http://www.medialifemagazine.com/your-client-on-digital-billboards/
The legislation will allow an increase locally, whatever the national trends. Also, new billboards will lead to removal of trees - whether naturally occurring or planted as landscaping - to provide a clear view of the new signs from the road.
OK, I've read the bill - 2013-493 ( http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2013-0493\Original%20Text ), and it does call for a 2:1 removal-to-new-sign ratio (actually square footage). So, you are correct, sir, that it won't be an absolute increase in the number of signs county-wide. In other words, to erect a new 672 square foot sign (the maximum size), they would have to remove 1344 square feet of other signs. But it does allow new signs in areas that don't currently have them (JTB, for example) by allowing them by right in a large number of zoning classifications. The sign company can remove a couple underperforming signs in an area with less auto traffic, and erect a new sign where none exist now. To the folks driving JTB, that is an increase in signs.
I would also venture to guess that an ordinance written by representatives of the sign industry won't do anything to hurt the sign industry.
Yes. I said that, and concede that the absolute number of signs will go down (assuming the City actually enforces the law). I also said that it will mean new signs along roadways that currently do not have them - either because they never did or have had them removed under the 1987 Charter amendment and subsequent laws and court agreements. Putting new signs - as close as 1000 feet apart on non-Interstates (1500' on Interstates) - is an increase in visual pollution to areas that do not currently have it.
QuoteBut it does allow new signs in areas that don't currently have them (JTB, for example) by allowing them by right in a large number of zoning classifications. The sign company can remove a couple underperforming signs in an area with less auto traffic, and erect a new sign where none exist now. To the folks driving JTB, that is an increase in signs.
Is it possible to have this portion of the text removed from bill - 2013-493?
There are signs that are on traffic levels lower than those on JTB (and other roads). Billboard companies are selling "eyeballs" - the number of people that will go by a given site. Some of these low traffic signs are only used at a low level - they may have had the same public service message on them for an extended period, or even the same paid ad. The sign may be in disrepair - with the paper or vinyl message torn. The billboard companies aren't going to swap out highly profitable locations for new sites.
Yes, it will mean two signs along a lower traffic road could come down to allow a new one elsewhere. It is likely (wild guess here) that the signs removed are the only billboards along that road. And remember what I said earlier, that every new billboard will lead to clear-cutting all trees, both on private property where the sign is, and on the public right-of-way, between the sign and the roadway.
Don't know if it applies - does complying with a Federal law trump the City ordinance? I honestly don't know. Maybe they could plant them in place of the billboards they remove.
Please city council: no signs on JTB. It remains a somewhat enjoyable ride without all the visual clutter that billboards create.
I recall the positive and (at that time) press Jacksonville received statewide about our 'no new sign law' that was voted on and passed 25 years ago.
It was one time where Jax was doing something that today would be categorized as perhaps 'forward thinking' or maybe even 'green' to use a modern term.
But it never really eliminated the signs as it kept getting watered down and sign companies were given exceptions. etc.
No doubt politics got in the way (political contributions from the sign & ad companies one presumes, played a part). Sad but true.
Also as an aside: in my opinion, I don't think the new digital billboards are any better than traditional signs. They are prettier to look at but the ad message changing every so many seconds is a worse distraction in my opinion.
I actually pay more attention to the traditional signs. Kind of easier to grasp what the message is. Actually the old style signs might be more effective for the advertiser (in my opinion). But either version is an eyesore. Sorry but they are. The PSA argument is just a weak excuse to allow them.
Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2013, 09:19:10 AM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 04, 2013, 08:13:12 AM
And remember what I said earlier, that every new billboard will lead to clear-cutting all trees, both on private property where the sign is, and on the public right-of-way, between the sign and the roadway.
Isn't there also a tree cutting requirement that the trees be replaced with more trees?
No, just a requirement that if the trees cut are on public property that an amount of money be paid into a fund. There are two that together amount to a couple of million dollars that have never been used for their intended purpose. But that is the subject for another thread under Politics.
It just makes me sigh, shake my head and contemplate yet another fumble by the City administration.
I'll get the details and start the thread later; not sure of exactly why there are two funds, etc. right now.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 04, 2013, 12:08:15 AM
Is it possible to have this portion of the text removed from bill - 2013-493?
As pointed out on another thread, we have 31 city attorneys...surely one of them can come up with better legislation than having it spoonfed to them by a billboard co's lawyer?
Tracey Arpen was at the Urban Core CPAC tonight to talk about 2013-493. Some of the points he made
- allows billboards in the least intensive commercial zoning classes: CN, CO, etc
- allows billboards within 200' of a residence on the same side of the street, and can be directly across the street from a residence
- all new billboards can be digital
- allows larger "temporary" extensions 33% of base sign size vs. 10% now
- despite what Clear Channel and C/m Clark say, the current laws do provide for necessary maintenance and repair of damaged signs
- the top of signs can be 65 feet above level ground OR 65 feet above the surface of the highway they are intended to be seen from; think about how tall this will allow near the Overland Bridge, the I-10/I-95 interchange, or the Regency or Mayport flyovers
- other cities are getting much better "old for digital" swap ratios than the 2:1 in the ordinance, he mentioned (I think) St. Pete getting better than 10:1
The Urban Core CPAC voted to oppose the ordinance and ask for it to be deferred so all the CPACs, and other citizens, will have a chance to consider it. Under the present schedule, it could be voted on by full Council as early as Aug. 27.
Apache,
I use JTB as my example because since it opened 1977 or so it has never ever had a billboard. In that sense it is pristine as compared to most roadways in Duval & Clay County.
I am about as far from extremist as it gets by the way.
If the signs don't bother you well that's cool, good for you. Doesn't mean that everyone who shares the roads feels the same way.
Sign companies, advertising powerhouses have had their way for years.
The no sign laws were passed by actual vote of the people. It was a done deal.
Then after a couple years the exceptions started and have been going on for 20 years.
If the electorate vote but the politicians don't enforce the law then why bother having a referendum in the first place?
Have you driven down Blanding Blvd lately? If that is ok by you then I am not going to be able to convince you that the opposite of that is better.
I'm probably like Apache. I actually never recognized JTB didn't have billboards until it was mentioned in this thread.......and I used to commute on it daily for my first five years in town (2003-2008). The major difference I see between Blanding and JTB is that Blanding is a largely built out stretch of aging suburban strip development and JTB is a limited access highway with land around it that hasn't been developed. I never really noticed the billboard thing on either. I'll have to pay more attention, next time I'm on these highways. With that said, why not lobby to have the legislation modified? Also, what's wrong with the digital billboards? Do people really consider them worse than the old ones they've been replacing?
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 05, 2013, 10:48:21 PM
Tracey Arpen was at the Urban Core CPAC tonight to talk about 2013-493. Some of the points he made
- allows billboards in the least intensive commercial zoning classes: CN, CO, etc
- allows billboards within 200' of a residence on the same side of the street, and can be directly across the street from a residence
- all new billboards can be digital
- allows larger "temporary" extensions 33% of base sign size vs. 10% now
- despite what Clear Channel and C/m Clark say, the current laws do provide for necessary maintenance and repair of damaged signs
- the top of signs can be 65 feet above level ground OR 65 feet above the surface of the highway they are intended to be seen from; think about how tall this will allow near the Overland Bridge, the I-10/I-95 interchange, or the Regency or Mayport flyovers
- other cities are getting much better "old for digital" swap ratios than the 2:1 in the ordinance, he mentioned (I think) St. Pete getting better than 10:1
The Urban Core CPAC voted to oppose the ordinance and ask for it to be deferred so all the CPACs, and other citizens, will have a chance to consider it. Under the present schedule, it could be voted on by full Council as early as Aug. 27.
After having driven all around Florida and the eastern seaboard, I really have no preference either way. Very rarely do I even pay attention to billboards unless I'm a passenger or looking for a Cracker Barrel. I don't foresee this bill passing meaning that JTB or Philips Hwy or any other roadway will be turned into International Drive style sign clutter. In my opinion, it seems that people aren't so much against billboards per se as they are against change. It is nice and serene now and that ideallic image would be shattered by a new billboard advertising whatever they now advertise.
However, don't billboard companies have to pay rent to the landowner? And along the interstates or if one were placed on JTB, wouldn't that be an income stream for the DOT?
Quote from: thelakelander on August 06, 2013, 07:43:11 AM
Also, what's wrong with the digital billboards? Do people really consider them worse than the old ones they've been replacing?
Haven't cities or states enacted legislation that limits how often the image can change or "flash" based on the fact that it is a distraction to drivers?
And as a follow up to Lakes question, what is the difference between a visual picture advertising the beaches on I-95 and a digital screen telling me to "Look Twice, Save a Life" or "Click It or Ticket"? Aren't they both attracting/distracting at the same rate?
^Ultimately, I think many would like to see both gone. However, on most of our ugly streets, they blend right in the rest of the clutter lining them.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/706101787_pNNyE-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/706103571_tH8sa-M.jpg)
Quote from: marksjax on August 06, 2013, 12:02:37 AM
Apache,
I use JTB as my example because since it opened 1977 or so it has never ever had a billboard. In that sense it is pristine as compared to most roadways in Duval & Clay County.
I am about as far from extremist as it gets by the way.
If the signs don't bother you well that's cool, good for you. Doesn't mean that everyone who shares the roads feels the same way.
Sign companies, advertising powerhouses have had their way for years.
The no sign laws were passed by actual vote of the people. It was a done deal.
Then after a couple years the exceptions started and have been going on for 20 years.
If the electorate vote but the politicians don't enforce the law then why bother having a referendum in the first place?
Have you driven down Blanding Blvd lately? If that is ok by you then I am not going to be able to convince you that the opposite of that is better.
+1 Let's have Billboards in the Timucuan.
Kayak Julington or Durbin Creek and round the bend.
Who wants to be a 501-C? I'm serious.
PSA announcements 24/7
There are a lot of little billboards along streets like Beaver St. and St. Augustine Road close to town that are not being rented because the traffic counts are low. Swapping two of those for an electronic billboard along JTB or Baymeadows is a big revenue gain for Clear Channel.
This bill was written by Clear Channel's lawyers. You can bet it is not a win-win rather a win for Clear Channel and a loss for us.
Quote from: JayBird on August 06, 2013, 07:49:56 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 06, 2013, 07:43:11 AM
Also, what's wrong with the digital billboards? Do people really consider them worse than the old ones they've been replacing?
Haven't cities or states enacted legislation that limits how often the image can change or "flash" based on the fact that it is a distraction to drivers?
And as a follow up to Lakes question, what is the difference between a visual picture advertising the beaches on I-95 and a digital screen telling me to "Look Twice, Save a Life" or "Click It or Ticket"? Aren't they both attracting/distracting at the same rate?
They are allowed to change every eight seconds! Distracting indeed. They are not allowed to have moving images, thank heavens! Because they can change so often, it is cheap and easy for Clear Channel to be "a contributor to the community" by putting up public service messages occasionally.
Can't wait until someone figures out how to hack the satellite feed to the electronic billboards and start inserting porn pictures into the rotation of images. That would back traffic up for sure. ;)
One objection to digital boards is their brightness, they are orders of magnitude brighter than standard boards. Out in the country, that may be OK, but in close proximity to homes, it is not OK.
No, there would be no revenue stream to DOT as they would not be on DOT property.
^So is the answer for the opposition to offer up some modifications to the current bill on the issues they disagree with?
There is no pressing need to pass this bill by the end of August (current schedule). If the bill could be deferred to allow time for citizens to speak and offer alternatives, that would be good. You can bet the billboard lobbyists are meeting with Council members. If the bill cannot be deferred, it must be defeated. Then, perhaps, someone can come with something better for all, and not just better for the billboard companies.
Haw can people possibly take time to read the billboards when they are all so busy texting, gesturing with both hands while talking on the phone or otherwise occupied when they should be paying attention to their driving.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 06, 2013, 01:07:38 PM
There is no pressing need to pass this bill by the end of August (current schedule). If the bill could be deferred to allow time for citizens to speak and offer alternatives, that would be good. You can bet the billboard lobbyists are meeting with Council members. If the bill cannot be deferred, it must be defeated. Then, perhaps, someone can come with something better for all, and not just better for the billboard companies.
Correction... 'Billboard lobbyists are meeting with Councilman Clark..." You'll recall that the citizens are just NOISE!
I will say that I believe billboards serve a purpose beyond jobs and corporate gain, when traveling long-distances it's often the billboard that alerts one to unknown attractions, restaurants, hotels etc... Maybe I'm just a sucker for "See the 20 foot long alligator," but out near the city limits, perhaps a advertising zone would be useful. Otherwise, the citizens voted NO on billboards, thus any city council member that supports such a city wide bill, should be put on notice that they'll be subject to a class action and recall.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 06, 2013, 11:47:05 AM
^So is the answer for the opposition to offer up some modifications to the current bill on the issues they disagree with?
That would seem logical. ;) I had a chance to review the legislation in more detail this weekend. I'm not interested in debating the rhetoric of "billboards are visual pollution" or "billboards are the greatest thing since sliced bread." Instead, I'd like to focus on the actual language in the legislation. In my opinion, the focus of the debate here should be (a) what type of development standards does the legislation propose, and (b) what zoning regulations does the community-at-large think are reasonable for this industry? I think this latter issue (what standards are reasonable) is what lakelander is throwing out for discussion. So let's take a look at the first issue: What standards does the legislation propose?
The legislation is more than 20 pages long, so I'll do my best to summarize what I read:
1. The legislation creates rules for maintaining and repairing existing "off-site commercial signs." It revises the Zoning Code to provide that those signs that exist today will be deemed legal nonconforming uses and shall be entitled to be maintained and repaired. It then states that you are not allowed to change the height, size or type of construction of the sign. You are only allowed to maintain and repair what you have.
2. The legislation creates a new section in the Zoning Code that allows for "replacement off-site commercial signs in certain zoning districts when existing off-site sign inventory is further reduced, subject to certain performances standards and residential proximity restrictions." This new section states that it is designed to "encourage the removal of additional off-site commercial signs" and it does so by creating a "sign removal credit system." A billboard company can earn one credit for each square foot of sign display face removed, and they can apply for a "replacement off-site commercial sign" when they submit "credits equal to twice the display area square footage" of the proposed replacement sign. Basically, to erect a replacement billboard, you have to take down 2 billboards of equal size.
This new section then creates various zoning and performance standards. If a billboard company takes down enough signs to erect a replacement sign, that replacement sign can only be built in commercial zoning districts, downtown, industrial zoning districts, public buildings and facilities zoning districts, and certain PUD zoning districts
The bill then prohibits replacement signs in certain historic districts and zoning overlay districts, establishes spacing standards (can't be closer than 1,000 feet to another billboard on non-interstate roads, and 1500 feet for interstates), establishes separation requirements (can't be within 200 feet of residential zoning district), establishes size (672 square feet) and height limits (65 feet)
3. The legislation amends the Charter to "halt the proliferation of off-site commercial billboards by capping the existing inventory of off-site commercial billboards and only permitting replacement off-site commercial billboards when existing inventory is further reduced." This section of the legislation basically mirrors number 2, above, by stating (a) no person can construct a billboard if doing so would increase the total number of billboards in the City; and (b) you can only construct a replacement billboard if you take down 2 existing ones.
So that answers the first question (what type of development standards does the legislation propose), and the second one remains: what zoning regulations does the community-at-large think are reasonable for this industry? Or, as lakelander asks, which of these standards needs to be modified to create a set of regulations that both sides find reasonable?
I like the digital billboards I do not understand what all the fuss is. We are a city, get over it. Even little ole Clayton, Ga in the foothills of the Smoky Mtns has a digital billboard along US 441.
QuoteSo is this about actual billboard issues or is it about making sure that Clear specifically doesnt make any money from advertising?
It's about billboards and the use of public property (roads) for private profit at the expense of visual blight.
I don't care if it's Clear Channel, CBS, Lamar or Joe Blow.
It's also about the death of other forms of advertising. Newspapers and magazines have seen the circulation and ad revenues decline. We hop past ads with our DVRs. We throw away the paper ads that are thrown in our yards and discard the ad sections in the Sunday paper if we even get it. Polls are showing less than a 3% "hit" rate on those forms of advertising. Most of us have ad blockers on our browsers and recognize spam without opening it. Junk mail goes straight into the recycle bin.
Where can they get captive eyeballs? Out in the public spaces. The sides of buses, billboards, etc. Give them a foothold and they will try to cover every possible public surface with advertising since that is almost the last place left for them since we don't like to look at their crap. All to force you to see their message.
It still allows billboards in places they are not now.
The citizens spoke in 1987. City Council and the city Counsel should both be on guard to prevent anymore erosion of this public outcry Those who are working on this, should follow the money, publicly out those who support, those lobbyist who are working on it, and those who stand to benefit. As someone once said, Follow the Money.
LUZ council states that a workshop is going to be held to discuss intracacies of this.
I guess one relevant question would be, 'what zoning classes allow billboards now?' The proposed ordinance will allow billboards in all commercial districts, including Commercial Neighborhood and Commercial Office:
Quote
(d) Authorized Locations. Replacement off-site commercial signs shall be restricted to the following commercial, industrial and governmental zoning districts, subject to the performance standards and residential proximity restrictions set forth herein:
(1) Commercial Community/General-1 (CCG-1)
(2) Commercial Community/General-2 (CCG-2)
(3) Commercial Office (CO)
(4) Commercial, Residential and Office (CRO)
(5) Commercial Neighborhood (CN)
(6) Commercial Central Business District (CCBD)
(7) Industrial Business Park (IBP)
(8 ) Industrial Light (IL)
(9) Industrial Heavy (IH)
(10) Public Buildings and Facilities-1 (PBF-1)
(11) Public Buildings and Facilities-2 (PBF-2)
(12) Planned Unit Development (PUD), so long as the permitted uses of the PUD are similar to the aforementioned conventional zoning districts.
Note #10 and #11 - Public Buildings and Facilities - billboards could come to a park or government building near you. (Yes, that should mean revenue for the City, but I trust the City to find a way to screw that up.)
Does the current code allow billboards in CO, CN, and CRO? If the rest of the new ordinance were to pass, with the 2-for-1 swap down and new billboards, could they be in your neighborhood (unless you are in Springfield or Riverside-Avondale which are protected)? They just have be 200 feet from a house on the same side of the street - no minimum distance if it is across the street.
Quote(g) Separation from residential districts. Any replacement off-site commercial sign allowed by this section shall be set back at least 200 linear feet from any residential zoning district along the same side of the roadway.
stephendare, I know I am not going to convince you to even understand that some people may not want to see billboards where they have never been before, or where they have been removed, and especially don't want to see a bright LED board a couple hundred feet from their house.
Hmmm ... thought I had ... I'm sure I "thought" it ... :)
They would be legal in a Commercial Neighborhood zoning, which would be, by definition I think, near a neighborhood. As evidenced by how hard they fought for the digital billboards a couple years ago, the industry wants the new tech - they can sell the same space (whatever 24 hours divided by 8 seconds comes to) many times. Now, without looking at detailed zoning maps, I can't say how prevalent this zoning combination is - but would expect there are a goodly number of these locations in the county along roads with sufficient traffic to justify such a sign.
The example that Mr. Arpin used was the Miramar shopping center, where San Jose and Hendrick meet. The center is zoned CCG and is a triangle more than 600' from the point to the homes north of the center. A digital board could go near the point at the south end of the property, and be right across both San Jose and Hendricks from several single family homes. It doesn't matter how close residences are if they are across the street from the sign. Guessing the traffic along there would justify a digital sign. If I had more time, I am sure I could find some good CN or CO examples.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 06, 2013, 09:22:43 PM
Hmmm ... thought I had ... I'm sure I "thought" it ... :)
They would be legal in a Commercial Neighborhood zoning, which would be, by definition I think, near a neighborhood. As evidenced by how hard they fought for the digital billboards a couple years ago, the industry wants the new tech - they can sell the same space (whatever 24 hours divided by 8 seconds comes to) many times. Now, without looking at detailed zoning maps, I can't say how prevalent this zoning combination is - but would expect there are a goodly number of these locations in the county along roads with sufficient traffic to justify such a sign.
The example that Mr. Arpin used was the Miramar shopping center, where San Jose and Hendrick meet. The center is zoned CCG and is a triangle more than 600' from the point to the homes north of the center. A digital board could go near the point at the south end of the property, and be right across both San Jose and Hendricks from several single family homes. It doesn't matter how close residences are if they are across the street from the sign. Guessing the traffic along there would justify a digital sign. If I had more time, I am sure I could find some good CN or CO examples.
Isn't the Miramar shopping center surrounded by residential zoning? If so, how could a billboard be placed there if the legislation doesn't allow any within 200 feet of a residential zoning district?
Instead of billboards near houses look at it as houses near billboards...
http://inhabitat.com/billboard-house-sign-painters-temporary-prefab-home-doubles-as-a-rooftop-advert-in-mexico-city/billboard-house-julio-gomez-trevilla/?extend=1
Would love to know how to embed photos...someone pm me.
Quote from: GatorNation on August 08, 2013, 11:33:20 AM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 06, 2013, 09:22:43 PM
Hmmm ... thought I had ... I'm sure I "thought" it ... :)
They would be legal in a Commercial Neighborhood zoning, which would be, by definition I think, near a neighborhood. As evidenced by how hard they fought for the digital billboards a couple years ago, the industry wants the new tech - they can sell the same space (whatever 24 hours divided by 8 seconds comes to) many times. Now, without looking at detailed zoning maps, I can't say how prevalent this zoning combination is - but would expect there are a goodly number of these locations in the county along roads with sufficient traffic to justify such a sign.
The example that Mr. Arpin used was the Miramar shopping center, where San Jose and Hendrick meet. The center is zoned CCG and is a triangle more than 600' from the point to the homes north of the center. A digital board could go near the point at the south end of the property, and be right across both San Jose and Hendricks from several single family homes. It doesn't matter how close residences are if they are across the street from the sign. Guessing the traffic along there would justify a digital sign. If I had more time, I am sure I could find some good CN or CO examples.
Isn't the Miramar shopping center surrounded by residential zoning? If so, how could a billboard be placed there if the legislation doesn't allow any within 200 feet of a residential zoning district?
From the proposed ordinance:
Quote(g) Separation from residential districts. Any replacement off-site commercial sign allowed by this section shall be set back at least 200 linear feet from any residential zoning district along the same side of the roadway.
The houses on the same side of the roadway of the Miramar shopping center are 'behind' the stores, and the property is more than 600 feet deep, from the point to the back of the stores. The residential zoning "surrounding" the shopping center is across the street - either San Jose or Hendricks - thus, the "same side of the roadway" language wouldn't apply (at least to my non-lawyer mind).
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 08, 2013, 10:14:07 PM
Quote from: GatorNation on August 08, 2013, 11:33:20 AM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 06, 2013, 09:22:43 PM
Hmmm ... thought I had ... I'm sure I "thought" it ... :)
They would be legal in a Commercial Neighborhood zoning, which would be, by definition I think, near a neighborhood. As evidenced by how hard they fought for the digital billboards a couple years ago, the industry wants the new tech - they can sell the same space (whatever 24 hours divided by 8 seconds comes to) many times. Now, without looking at detailed zoning maps, I can't say how prevalent this zoning combination is - but would expect there are a goodly number of these locations in the county along roads with sufficient traffic to justify such a sign.
The example that Mr. Arpin used was the Miramar shopping center, where San Jose and Hendrick meet. The center is zoned CCG and is a triangle more than 600' from the point to the homes north of the center. A digital board could go near the point at the south end of the property, and be right across both San Jose and Hendricks from several single family homes. It doesn't matter how close residences are if they are across the street from the sign. Guessing the traffic along there would justify a digital sign. If I had more time, I am sure I could find some good CN or CO examples.
Isn't the Miramar shopping center surrounded by residential zoning? If so, how could a billboard be placed there if the legislation doesn't allow any within 200 feet of a residential zoning district?
From the proposed ordinance:
Quote(g) Separation from residential districts. Any replacement off-site commercial sign allowed by this section shall be set back at least 200 linear feet from any residential zoning district along the same side of the roadway.
The houses on the same side of the roadway of the Miramar shopping center are 'behind' the stores, and the property is more than 600 feet deep, from the point to the back of the stores. The residential zoning "surrounding" the shopping center is across the street - either San Jose or Hendricks - thus, the "same side of the roadway" language wouldn't apply (at least to my non-lawyer mind).
I guess it depends on how you interpret that language. One could also argue that the shopping center and houses across the street (by the river) are both west of Hendricks, and therefore on the same side of that roadway. Either way, you make a good point . . . the language should be revised to make it clear that no billboards can be placed within a certain distance of someone's home.
Quote from: Gators312 on August 08, 2013, 06:41:46 PM
Instead of billboards near houses look at it as houses near billboards...
http://inhabitat.com/billboard-house-sign-painters-temporary-prefab-home-doubles-as-a-rooftop-advert-in-mexico-city/billboard-house-julio-gomez-trevilla/?extend=1
Would love to know how to embed photos...someone pm me.
(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/03/Billboard-House-Julio-Gomez-Trevilla.jpg)
(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/03/Billboard-House-Julio-G%C3%B3mez-Trevilla-2.jpg)
(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/03/Billboard-House-Julio-G%C3%B3mez-Trevilla-3.jpg)
(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/03/Billboard-House-Julio-G%C3%B3mez-Trevilla-4.jpg)
(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/03/Billboard-House-Julio-G%C3%B3mez-Trevilla-5.jpg)
(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/03/Billboard-House-Julio-G%C3%B3mez-Trevilla-6.jpg)
(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/03/Billboard-House-Julio-G%C3%B3mez-Trevilla-7.jpg)
https://www.facebook.com/scenicadvocatesjax
Yes,
Here's another leading figure in Jacksonville who was involved in the 1987 Citizens Charter Amendment.
Quote
To each of you of the City Council:
In the late 80‘s I was part of the JCCI study of visual pollution of the City of Jacksonville. I am proud to say that Jacksonville has been my home since 1946, and I feel the quality of life we enjoy is due in part to the natural beauty of the area. I am a retired Air Force officer, a successful business man, and the Founder and Chairman of The Amelia Island Concours d’Elegance. To re-address what the people of Jacksonville endorsed overwhelmingly in 1987 is ridiculous and un-needed. I travel a great deal and visit cities which many of you may think of as inferior to our beautiful home of Jacksonville, but many of these cities have aggressively addressed the demands of the outdoor advertisers and have maintained the integrity of their community by controlling the signage that lines their thorough fares. I am sure many of you do not remember the fraud and criminal acts that saw one councilman do jail time as a result of bribes taken back in the 80’s. Many of you may not be aware that the culprits at that time were Billy Bob Morris (owner of the TU) and the Naegle Sign Company (conveniently owned by Billy Bob). Public hearings were crammed with Naegele employees in a move to prevent the people of Jacksonville from being heard. The overt moves by Naegele and other outdoor advertisers were enough to move the public as never before resulting in the Charter Amendment. I am writing to advise each and every one of you that I will fight the latest proposal with every ounce of strength I can muster. I feel it is only fair to advise you that once a year I do purchase billboard space to promote The Amelia Island Concours d’Elegance, but I feel so strongly about this, that I will eliminate that expense for more appropriate promotion of the event. Unfortunately, politics are ugly. Don’t make it any uglier. Should any or all of you wish to reach me, my numbers are below:
Bill Warner
Founder & Chairman of The Amelia Island Concours d’Elegance
Office: 636-####
Home: 733-####
Cell: 631-####
Morris's tactics were benign and childish compared to what Clear Channel and CBS are doing around here and across the country.
Mr. Warner said in his letter that he will never use a billboard to advertise for the Concourse again.
It is very interesting to read these posted notes. So much rhetoric and so little action. If you want to change something one way or another, you have to get personally and deeply involved, instead of doing what Mr. Dare describes as "Whacka mole", which is touching on an issue and moving on. To become a change agent, you have to get get involved and work toward a leadership position. I enjoy these discussions but wonder how much change is impacted? Maybe there has been a lot with which I am not familiar. Hans and Jake, surrounded themselves with change agents. Ed and John did also. Not sure John II or Alvin did. Oh well, worst case thanks to term limits is only at worst, eight years in a wrong direction, however, even those Mayors who have not been considered our best made some good decisions, back to Haydon, who cleaned up Bay Street. Tommy, who got rid of tolls(though there continues to be strong opposition to no tolls). However, knowing what this city faces, recent polls, though not scientific, indicate a public reluctance to raise taxes to pay for services. When Cornwallis had to surrender at Yorktown, his band marched out playing "The World turned upside down", not sure this should not become the theme song of Jacksonville in the 21st century.
There is an on air discussion about this legislation right now on WJCT
Richard Clark and Tracey Arpin are scheduled to be at Arlington CPAC tonight. Meeting starts at 6:30 in the JAA building at Craig Airport.
Presentations will be given by both sides at the Greater Arlington Beaches CPAC meeting tonight:
QuoteGreater Arlington Beaches District
Citizens Planning Advisory Committee
MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA
1. Call to Order/Verify Quorum
2. Approval of the Previous Meeting Summary
3. Staff Reports
• JSO (Jacksonville Sheriff's Office)
• Mayor's Liaison
• Duval County Public Schools
• FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation)
• Neighborhoods
• Planning & Development
• Recreation & Parks
4. Presentation: (5 minute time limit each)
• Councilman Richard Clark ~ Ordinance 2013-493
• Tracy Arpen, Scenic Advocates of Jacksonville
• Clear Channel Outdoor Representative
• Councilman Don Redman ~ 2013-0415
• Lauren Trad, Hens In Jax
• Barbara Leis, Concerns Citizens Against 2013-0415
• Dane Connell, District Manager, WastePro
5. Chair's Report
6. Elected Officials Reports
7. Subcommittee/Liaison Reports
• LUZ (Land Use and Zoning)/Governmental Affairs
• Beautification/Parks/Environment
• Membership
• Transportation
Ad-Hoc:
• Environment
• Craig Airport
• TRUE (Taxation, Revenue, and Utilization of Expenditures)Commission
8. Unfinished Business
9. New Business
10. Public Comments/Announcements (3-minute time limit)
11. Motion to Adjourn
o Housing and Community Development Division
o Municipal Code Compliance Division
Date: August 12, 2013
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Location: Jacksonville Executive at Craig Airport
855-1 St. Johns Bluff Road North, Jacksonville, FL 32225
Late to the thread, but I too was here in 1987. And for 20 years before that. The billboards used to be everywhere and were, shall we say, less than properly maintained in many cases? Some companies maintained their signs properly, but not all of them.
Digital billboards, bright and changing every few seconds, are extremely distracting, and the last thing we need is more distracted driving. In fact, anything that entices a driver to take their eyes off the road should not be encouraged.
My two cents. Advertising on the internet, smart phones, TV, newspapers, magazines, etc. is one thing. One is sittling still. Distracting drivers barreling along at 70 mph in a two ton car...well, that's a whole different story.
Geomarketing: 'Minority Report' Style Advertising
http://youtu.be/4bs9cAeOqZY
The Billboards need to go with all the new Advertising here today and coming in the near future. These Billboard companies that feel they are getting the short end of the stick? So Be It!
The Arlington-Beaches CPAC voted to oppose the proposed billboard ordinance. Speaking in favor was Councilman Richard Clark; speaking against was Tracey Arpin. Vote was unanimous.
Richard Clark was the Clear Channel representative?
You thought otherwise!!!? Or are you being sarcastic?
The lawyer for Clear Channel, who wrote the proposed legislation, was at the Southwest CPAC meeting this evening.
Did they take any action?
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 12, 2013, 10:23:32 PM
You thought otherwise!!!? Or are you being sarcastic?
The lawyer for Clear Channel, who wrote the proposed legislation, was at the Southwest CPAC meeting this evening.
Yes. What's the Richard Clark connection? Is he the sponsor of the bill?
Richard Clark is the sponsor of the bill (authored by Clear Channel lawyers).
He spoke about "capitalism" and "free enterprise" and that we have so many fewer billboards than we used to have, it is OK to put them in areas that don't have them now.
The billboards we have now are not that well maintained.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 13, 2013, 06:34:09 AM
Richard Clark is the sponsor of the bill (authored by Clear Channel lawyers).
He spoke about "capitalism" and "free enterprise" and that we have so many fewer billboards than we used to have, it is OK to put them in areas that don't have them now.
That's a horrible argument.
This is a pure special interest bill designed to benefit the outdoor advertising companies. Any argument that it will benefit the community is BS. The whole thing carries the stink of corrupt dealings.
Do you see citizens standing on the street corners collecting petitions to allow more billboards? Me either.
Maybe it's just me not being familiar with the local fight two decades ago. Nevertheless, I do see value in certain types of billboards and signage. There's value in digital billboard technology and leveraging that can happen when two opposing sides work together (bus shelter funding for example). I can also see value in not allowing billboards to be expanded to corridors where there are none today, at the expense of removing older billboards form lesser traveled arterials.
Since it appears no one is willing to find the balance of a middle ground, what happens if Clark's bill fails and the terms of the decades old agreement expire later this year? What lies behind the door that opens at that point?
I was born and raised in the small city of Florence, SC. Growing up it was a pretty nice looking city, people took pride in their homes and yards, we had a 'beauty trail' that showcased our most azalea/oleander/dogwood foliaged streets.
Billboards were modest in number and size, and did not dominate the landscape. There was a 'gentleman's agreement' that allowed just one company to erect them in this 'territory'.
That is completely changed now. Lots of billboards, many of which are double-decked and/or as tall as 6 or 8 story buildings. Now the state DOT is forcing the city to butcher trees that were planted with tax dollars to beautify the primary roadway into the city. Why? So as not to block the views of billboards.
Some of these 'massive' trees are Crepe Myrtles that supposedly can grow to Sequoia size.
http://www.scnow.com/news/local/article_e2786ffc-1d95-11e3-a539-001a4bcf6878.html?mode=image&photo= (http://www.scnow.com/news/local/article_e2786ffc-1d95-11e3-a539-001a4bcf6878.html?mode=image&photo=)
Don't be too hard on the state DOT, if those billboards are along Interstates or other Federal Highways, federal law requires a (I believe) 500' "view zone". Inserted into law by the billboard industry. What is a popular way to run campaign ads? Oh, yes, on billboards!
Approving more billboards is a slippery slope, those former elected officials and the current proponent on the council, a man who left council meetings with business still on the table to have dinner with business mean, and when ask said he paid for his own meal in cash!!! And if you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you over the St. johns, and Suzanne Jenkins, whose record alone is questionable at best, and these people you think are going to help make the city a better city? No more billboards, they can advertise with direct mail, newspapers, etc. What road to the beach do you find more pleasant, Butler, Beach, Atlantic or Wonderwood, and which has the least billboards.
I have no problem allowing more digital billboards....if they agree to remove 10 old signs for every new one they put up,,,and if you think that the billboard companies won't agree to such extortion, check out what the rules in St. Petersburg are
But the proposed bill only has a 2:1 swap out.
This thread has been a fascinating read for a sleepless night. I was wondering, however, if anyone has some old visuals laying around of what the billboard/trailer sign situation looked like in Jax in the '80s, for us youngins who were too caught up in the playground drama and plastic-food-filled mini-kitchen gossip of preschool at the time to pay any attention to the greater landscape.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on November 10, 2013, 12:07:19 AM
But the proposed bill only has a 2:1 swap out.
eactly....we need to be far more aggressive
Where is the We Love Billboards bill in the Council process?