It would be nice if the majority of the DDRB would take this position against some of the poor building project designs they've approved in recent months.
QuoteThe board voted 4-2 against the application even though city lawyer Jason Teal said the board cannot prevent billboards from being built.
The city's building inspection division issues billboard permits. Teal said those permits are dictated by the terms of settlement agreements reached between the city and billboard companies in the 1990s.
"Your role is not to say whether the billboard is allowed to go there," Teal told the downtown review board. "It is to say what the billboard must look like if the developer does go forward."
full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-09-05/story/downtown-board-rejects-request-digital-billboard-southbank
yeah they need to be spending their time on more important matters. Who cares about a digital billboard being downtown, it might actually make the city look bright and alive (God forbid), with all of ouf our dark, unlit towers it always appears as if no one is home.
So they do know how to say "no".
Quote from: fsujax on September 06, 2013, 08:43:39 AM
yeah they need to be spending their time on more important matters. Who cares about a digital billboard being downtown, it might actually make the city look bright and alive (God forbid), with all of ouf our dark, unlit towers it always appears as if no one is home.
not sure I agree here....there is a place for outdoor advertising, but too much of it could be a bad thing....I'd like to see some trade-off standards...say removing 5 old billboards for every new digital one....St. Pete got something like a 13-1 ratio!
Although this wasn't being discussed, I'd actually be okay with a big digital billboard on a side of downtown building.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 06, 2013, 10:23:05 AM
Although this wasn't being discussed, I'd actually be okay with a big digital billboard on a side of downtown building.
As would I, but with some pre-established standards.
"I think that I shall never see a billboard pretty as a tree" - with apologies to Joyce Kilmer
Quote from: fsujax on September 06, 2013, 08:43:39 AM
yeah they need to be spending their time on more important matters. Who cares about a digital billboard being downtown, it might actually make the city look bright and alive (God forbid), with all of ouf our dark, unlit towers it always appears as if no one is home.
++++1
Definitely could make things bright and alive. Why do they say no to this, but yes to piss-poor suburban design in the urban areas? Good grief the priorities are backwards.
this sort of reminds me of the rejection of the advertising on the skyway, during the superbowl.
No, Apache. Those streets are in a different part of town. ;D
Our city leaders protecting us with all their might from becoming Blade Runner Los Angeles 2019
Dog Walker, you didn't finish the quote:
I think that I shall never see
a billboard pretty as a tree,
And unless the billboards fall
I'll never see a tree at all.
Travel down I-75 south of Gainesville, and about every half mile or so for many miles, you'll see the "We dare to bare" signs. Ennis, how cool would that be in electric lights on the side of one of our tall downtown buildings? Or on all of them? After all, if Building A can have such a sign and reap the financial benefits, why can't I on my Buildings B, C, D, etc.?
The billboard ordinance that is being considered was drafted by Clear Channel. Does anyone seriously believe it would draft legislation that would do anything but improve its revenue? And how will its revenue increase? Fewer billboards? Ummm, I think not. Clear Channel is flat out lying to us. If it is right that the settlement agreements reached long ago are about to expire, then why did it not choose to just lay low, let them expire, and then have free range to do whatever it wanted?
There is a philosophical and economic difference between billboard advertising and all other forms of advertising.
We watch advertisements on TV. They pay for the programs we like to watch. We read advertisements in magazines and newspapers. They pay for the stories we want to read. We listen to advertisements on the radio because they pay for the music we want to hear.
Billboards return no value to us at all. Instead the make use of a public space that we, as taxpayers, have developed over the years to make money for themselves and return no benefit to us. Instead they degrade our visual environment and lower our quality of life and we cannot avoid them.
I always want to yell at them, "Get out of my face!"
Bill, that wonderful take off on Joyce Kilmer was written by Ogden Nash, my favorite poet. "Here's a poem about rabbits that doesn't mention their habits!"
Quote from: Dog Walker on September 07, 2013, 09:59:42 AM
Billboards return no value to us at all. Instead the make use of a public space that we, as taxpayers, have developed over the years to make money for themselves and return no benefit to us. Instead they degrade our visual environment and lower our quality of life and we cannot avoid them.
Being that this is about a Southbank billboard, I thought this was on the side of a privately owned building ... And even if it was a public building, that would be revenue to go towards the buildings maintenance. Maybe instead of being pro- or anti- billboard it would be wiser to be more "depending upon on where it is will determine the circumstances around it".
Since the advertising value of a billboard is based on the number of cars going by on the highway, maybe there should be a tax (or fee) based on that number of cars, that goes to whatever agency maintains the road (City, DOT, etc.).
As someone said earlier, with Clear Channel writing the proposed ordinance, we aren't going to get anything better than 2:1 trade off of old billboards for new. I envy St. Pete's 15:1 (or something like that).
Since I think digital billboards are too bright and dangerously distracting, I'm actually fine with this. Although they will probably lose since the city appears to be bending over for Clear Channel. Really? Allowing the billboard company to write the ordinance? Isn't that just about the very definition of allowing the fox to guard the hen house?
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on September 07, 2013, 06:41:18 PM
Although they will probably lose since the city appears to be bending over for Clear Channel. Really? Allowing the billboard company to write the ordinance? Isn't that just about the very definition of allowing the fox to guard the hen house?
It isn't "the City" that is allowing this....Clear Channel drafted legislation that has since been sponsored by CM Richard Clark...whether good or bad, it is very common (especially at the state level).
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 07, 2013, 08:03:16 PM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on September 07, 2013, 06:41:18 PM
Although they will probably lose since the city appears to be bending over for Clear Channel. Really? Allowing the billboard company to write the ordinance? Isn't that just about the very definition of allowing the fox to guard the hen house?
It isn't "the City" that is allowing this....Clear Channel drafted legislation that has since been sponsored by CM Richard Clark...whether good or bad, it is very common (especially at the state level).
It is somewhat common for legislators to have the industry write the legislation they want. Exceptions to this usually occur around taxation, social services, etc.
The last two telecom deregulation acts in Congress were written by lobbyists for the industry. The MPAA and RIAA have been very, very active in writing the new legislation on copying and pirating (SOPA). Since no one expects a legislator to be a legal expert at all aspects of all kinds of regulation in all industries, and in absence of large staffs who could research and vet the potential rules, they prefer to have the regulated write their own language and then amend it as needed. If it doesn't work, then the legislators know that can go back to committee and have proposals to revoke the law, amend it or make other changes as they see fit.
This way the industry seeking the rules end up covering all the costs of getting the legislation written.
So then why does the legislature have drafting clerks and staff counsel? Come on, while that happens, it's only gotten to be considered 'normal' in the past 30 years or so. Prior to that, while I'm sure it still happened in back rooms, people saw it for the conflict of interest it is.
^ Actually not really, if you look back to the beginnings of both the oil and the railroad industries in our country you'll find that Cornelius Vanderbilt and Rockefeller had a huge say in implementing the regulations. Of course, this later led to laws against monopolies so maybe that isn't a good example. When I worked for AT&T Corp from 1999-2001 they had an entire department called Regulatory Affairs and the entire purpose was to draft legislation for the benefit of the companies' mission, and it wasn't hidden. I think this is how business has been done since business started. Otherwise each member of the House and Senate would need huge staffs to study each industry and an even bigger legal staff ... That would probably use more tax dollars than the military if they changed it. As a matter of fact, most companies even offer "fill-in-the-blank" RFP's for purchases such as a vehicles or construction work that many municipalities across the country take advantage of.
It also isn't "conflict of interest".....it is called advocacy and groups on all sides do it....it is only a problem if the authors aren't disclosed.
Quote from: JayBird on September 07, 2013, 09:26:35 PM
^ Actually not really, if you look back to the beginnings of both the oil and the railroad industries in our country you'll find that Cornelius Vanderbilt and Rockefeller had a huge say in implementing the regulations. Of course, this later led to laws against monopolies so maybe that isn't a good example. When I worked for AT&T Corp from 1999-2001 they had an entire department called Regulatory Affairs and the entire purpose was to draft legislation for the benefit of the companies' mission, and it wasn't hidden. I think this is how business has been done since business started. Otherwise each member of the House and Senate would need huge staffs to study each industry and an even bigger legal staff ... That would probably use more tax dollars than the military if they changed it. As a matter of fact, most companies even offer "fill-in-the-blank" RFP's for purchases such as a vehicles or construction work that many municipalities across the country take advantage of.
They do in fact have large staffs, plus most of them are lawyers themselves, it's not gobblygook to them, they know what they're looking at. And yeah, I bet AT&T had a whole department, although I'll cut them a pass since I've always thought they got a raw deal on divestiture. That said they've put 3/4'ths of it back together quietly.
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 07, 2013, 10:38:13 PM
It also isn't "conflict of interest".....it is called advocacy and groups on all sides do it....it is only a problem if the authors aren't disclosed.
It's a conflict of interest. I love how you're correcting me on a matter of political opinion, by the way. There's no right answer, other than perhaps that the way we're doing it presently (which you're evidently advocating for) isn't working.
^ see, advocacy ;)
Quote from: Dog Walker on September 07, 2013, 09:59:42 AM
There is a philosophical and economic difference between billboard advertising and all other forms of advertising.
We watch advertisements on TV. They pay for the programs we like to watch. We read advertisements in magazines and newspapers. They pay for the stories we want to read. We listen to advertisements on the radio because they pay for the music we want to hear.
Billboards return no value to us at all. Instead the make use of a public space that we, as taxpayers, have developed over the years to make money for themselves and return no benefit to us. Instead they degrade our visual environment and lower our quality of life and we cannot avoid them.
I always want to yell at them, "Get out of my face!"
Bill, that wonderful take off on Joyce Kilmer was written by Ogden Nash, my favorite poet. "Here's a poem about rabbits that doesn't mention their habits!"
Then perhaps there should be a special tax on billboard companies - all of the special tax money raised would fund road/transportation related projects. So then, we would see ads that are paying for the roads we drive on.
sort of like using ads to pay for bike sharing and bus shelters?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Chicago-2013/i-dQ2nN76/0/M/P1670276-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Chicago-2013/i-Ps78Ppr/0/M/P1670447-M.jpg)
Our past history suggests we'd still fight to keep the things shown above from happening if they included some form of advertising to help fund their existence.