Stop The Billboard Scam!

[urbanlibertarian]

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.

[Charles Hunter]

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?

[GatorNation]

Here is a somewhat favorable account of the history of the billboard ordinance, from Bill Brinton's site:

In 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)?

[Charles Hunter]

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.

[GatorNation]

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.

[fieldafm]

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.

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. 

[Charles Hunter]

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.

[ronchamblin]

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.

[Charles Hunter]

whoosh

[ronchamblin]

whoosh

CH.... What does "whoosh" mean?  I'm totally ignorant.. really.   

[Charles Hunter]

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

[ronchamblin]

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.   

[Charles Hunter]

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.

[Charles Hunter]

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.

[Charles Hunter]

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.