Stop The Billboard Scam!

[Charles Hunter]

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.

[thelakelander]

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. 

Is it possible to have this portion of the text removed from bill - 2013-493?

[Charles Hunter]

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.

[Charles Hunter]

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.

[marksjax]

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.

[Dog Walker]

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.

[Dog Walker]

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.

[m74reeves]

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?

[Charles Hunter]

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.

[marksjax]

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.

[thelakelander]

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?

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.

[JayBird]

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?

[JayBird]

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?

[thelakelander]

^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.

[Noone]

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