This document summarizes efforts by Scenic Alabama and other groups to limit billboards and digital signage. It discusses legislation in various states that attempts to preempt local control over billboards and allow billboard companies to bypass ordinances. It also describes legal challenges, protests against digital billboards, and tactics used by the billboard industry like planting illegal signs and poisoning trees. Overall, the document shows both sides of the ongoing debate around balancing business interests with landscape preservation.
California Bar Cyberspace Committee presentation on the essentials of cyberspace law focusing on user generated content, privacy and online advertising. President by Committee Co-Chair Bennet Kelley, Vice Chair Robert Hawn and Committee member Nicole Ozer.
Protecting Your Intellectual Property and your BrandNow Dentons
In this presentation FMC's Margot Patterson discusses protecting intellectual property and brands through discussion related to the Copyright Modernization Act, how Social Media is changing marketing practices and best practices for third-party content (partners & consumers).
California Bar Cyberspace Committee presentation on the essentials of cyberspace law focusing on user generated content, privacy and online advertising. President by Committee Co-Chair Bennet Kelley, Vice Chair Robert Hawn and Committee member Nicole Ozer.
Protecting Your Intellectual Property and your BrandNow Dentons
In this presentation FMC's Margot Patterson discusses protecting intellectual property and brands through discussion related to the Copyright Modernization Act, how Social Media is changing marketing practices and best practices for third-party content (partners & consumers).
“The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” — John F. Kennedy
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” — Edmund Burke
When Do Gas Drilling Bans Violate the Constitution of the United StatesKenneth Kamlet
An analysis of whether and when bans or moratoria on unconventional gas drilling and support activities, as practiced in New York by the State (de facto) and numerous localities, violate the "dormant" commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Legal Slush Funds - Massachusetts Towns Take In Over $50 Million in Cannabis ...Evergreen Buzz
Why bribery is legal in cannabis, read more https://cannabis.net/blog/news/its-local-its-legal-and-its-extortion-massachusetts-communities-have-raked-in-over-50-million-i.782305
Administrative Legal Research: Federalism & Power-Sharing with Entertainment ...Neal Axton
Slides to accompany my presentation on local, state and regional rule-making and regulations with examples drawn from entertainment law and food and beverage law.
Medical Marijuana Store within 500-feet of a School, Spot Zoning, Illegal Non...666isMONEY, Lc
This is a five-page letter to the City Council I presented at a meeting 8 January 2019. There are many more documents related to this in my SlideShare uploads.
“The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” — John F. Kennedy
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” — Edmund Burke
When Do Gas Drilling Bans Violate the Constitution of the United StatesKenneth Kamlet
An analysis of whether and when bans or moratoria on unconventional gas drilling and support activities, as practiced in New York by the State (de facto) and numerous localities, violate the "dormant" commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Legal Slush Funds - Massachusetts Towns Take In Over $50 Million in Cannabis ...Evergreen Buzz
Why bribery is legal in cannabis, read more https://cannabis.net/blog/news/its-local-its-legal-and-its-extortion-massachusetts-communities-have-raked-in-over-50-million-i.782305
Administrative Legal Research: Federalism & Power-Sharing with Entertainment ...Neal Axton
Slides to accompany my presentation on local, state and regional rule-making and regulations with examples drawn from entertainment law and food and beverage law.
Medical Marijuana Store within 500-feet of a School, Spot Zoning, Illegal Non...666isMONEY, Lc
This is a five-page letter to the City Council I presented at a meeting 8 January 2019. There are many more documents related to this in my SlideShare uploads.
3. Sen. Lamar Alexander was honored by Scenic America in
2012. While governor of Tennessee in the 1980s, Alexander
introduced legislation to prohibit tree cutting, saying, “tourists
come to Tennessee to see the scenery, not the billboards.”
4. Robert Burch sued the Montana Department of
Transportation for permitting these two billboards along
Interstate 90 across the road from his 28,000-acre ranch.
7. "I think it is pretty commonly held here … that billboards in
the numbers (Salt Lake City has) and where they're located
are a blight on the city and its natural landscape," he said.
"That's the view I hold. I don't hide it.“Mayor Ralph Becker
8. Utah’s largest billboard company pushed legislation that would prohibit ALL
Utah jurisdictions from enacting or enforcing any restrictions except by using
eminent domain.
And eminent domain could not be used to prevent a billboard from being
changed to a digital sign.
SB136, sponsored by Sen. Wayne Niederhauser, R-Sandy, would override
local ordinances, giving the billboard companies the authority to upgrade any
billboard they want with a digital billboard, as long as it is not within 150 feet
of a home.
The outcry from citizens and the press has slowed the progress of this bill.
There has been no action since March.
Who's the boss? Utah Legislature, Salt Lake City
battling over local issues Deseret News:
Herbert says cities are 'subservient' to the state A pig in the parlor:
SB136 is misguided
Good for business or bad for scenery? effort
Salt Lake City renews battle with billboard industry
9. A 2011 Missouri bill, which did not succeed, had a provision
that would have allowed the billboard industry to bypass local
ordinances.
10. A bill forbidding cities like
Rapid City from banning new
billboard technology died in the
House of Representatives after
falling four votes short of the
total needed to override Gov.
Dennis Daugaard’s veto.
In June, 2011, Rapid City’s
voters overwhelmingly
approved prohibiting any new
digital billboards
11. There’s a provision in HB 2543 that
prohibits cities from enacting electronic
billboard rules that are more restrictive than
the rules set for state freeways.
12. What could happen if
local sign regulations are
stopped? In 2008, this
was one of Scenic
Alabama’s visual aids in
fighting such a bill.
15. The bottom line is that Missouri has too many billboards.
They have turned Interstate 70 into a visual nightmare and
have created the wrong impression of Missouri as an
unappealing state to drive through. Legislation should be
aimed at reducing billboard clutter, not lighting it up with
digital bells and whistles. Kansas City Star
16. A Missouri bill would change state law to allow
hundreds of nonconforming billboards to be
replaced with digital ones.
MODOT is proposing a $3-4 billion rebuild of
I-70 through rural Missouri; sticking to current
law would permanently remove hundreds of
billboards at just a tiny fraction of overall
costs.
SB 607 also changes state law to allow
grandfathered billboards to be relocated to
new spots as part of state highway
improvement projects, at taxpayer expense.
18. Arizona has a new law that allows electronic
billboards in the Phoenix area and much of
southwestern Arizona but not the rest of the
state, including areas where astronomy
observatories are located.
19. Washington House Transportation Committee chair Judy
Clibborn: “I don’t like them myself, and there are people
who hate them a lot. Most of our members from the north
drive through Fife and see [the flashing billboards installed
on tribal land along I-5]. They don’t want more of those.”
20. August 2011: Tacoma’s City Council voted to quickly remove
at least 190 billboards, and possibly dozens more. The council
voted to tighten zoning restrictions, set a new deadline for
removing signs that don’t comply and ban digital billboards.
In doing so, the council backed out of a legal settlement with
Clear Channel that it had approved unanimously last year.
The council received a late blast of comments from hundreds
of residents who objected to adding a juiced-up form of
commercial intrusion, visual blight, and driver distraction to the
roadways.
Such complaints were enough to persuade Tacoma’s city
council and mayor to reverse an earlier decision allowing Clear
Channel to convert many of its boards there, and face the
inevitable lawsuit.
21. Tacoma and King County, Washington residents demonstrate
in favor of banning digital billboards.
22. Circuit Judge Wally Eklund upheld Rapid City’s
denial of Lamar Outdoor Advertising’s request to
convert six of its current signs to digital
billboards.
Lamar made the request shortly before the June
election where the City’s voters approved
prohibiting any new digital billboards. The City
denied the permits; Lamar appealed to the ZBA
which upheld the denial. Lamar then appealed to
the 7th Circuit Court in Rapid City.
In upholding the City’s
denial of the permits,
Judge Eklund ruled
that substantial
evidence supported
the City’s decision
and Lamar’s reliance
on any past City
approvals was not
reasonable.
24. When is a sign not a sign?
The city of St. Louis lost in
federal court over action
against a painted mural
expressing a political
opinion.
The court said a sign the
same size as the plaintiff’s
would not be regulated if it
were a religious, fraternal or
civil symbol. The city code
used the content of a sign to
determine if it was, in fact, a
"sign," the ruling said.
Roos commissioned the 360-square-foot mural in 2007 on the side of an apartment
building. It proclaims "End Eminent Domain Abuse" inside a red circle with a slash and is
visible from Interstates 44 and 55.
The city ordered Roos to remove it, saying it violated city sign regulations, and Roos and
two groups he founded sued.
25. Content restrictions can invalidate your sign ordinance.
Regulate signs as structures.
The distinction between on premise and off premise
signs can be construed a content restriction.
26. Getting Rid of Trees
Florida law, poisonings, Kentucky, North Carolina
27. Billboard companies claim
these landscaping
improvements interfere with
their business – so they have to
go! The Florida legislature,
regrettably, agrees, and passes
a law in 2008 to give billboards
the priority.
There, doesn’t that look
better?
28. Kentucky considered a bill allowing billboard companies to trim trees and other
vegetation in public rights-of-way.
The Transportation Cabinet opposed it due to the extra work and expense it
would create.
The bill gave the cabinet just 45 days to approve or reject a "view permit," and
rejections could be quickly appealed at no cost. This would reward billboard
companies that run out the clock by submitting incomplete applications.
The bill's provisions for "non-conforming" billboards would allow owners of non-
conforming billboards to obtain permits to repair them and trim vegetation.
29. A law that went into effect on March 1 allows billboard companies to ask the
N.C. Department of Transportation for a permit to clear a 340-foot window in
front of billboards along state roads. The previous window was 250 feet.
That the new law shifts power from local governments and places it in the
hands of the N.C. DOT.
If billboard companies remove trees, they have three options: They can replant
the area with a state-approved landscaping plan; they can remove two
nonconforming billboards anywhere in the state; or they can pay the state for
the loss of the trees.
30. Lamar’s Florida company ordered
its employees to poison trees
around billboards, according to
evidence in a whistleblower
lawsuit.
The employee described a “hit and
run” attack with a machete, a
hospital mask and a container
herbicide.
A supervisor and a second worker
support the claims in testimony.
The worker testified that his
regional manager ordered the
policy in the Tallahassee, Fla.,
area.
31. Tricks of the Trade
Emergency Messaging, Better for Business?
32. Emergency Messaging –
how the industry pitches
digital billboards to
communities.
What really happens:
advertising and
controversy.
33. Billboard opponents question the value
of the emergency message alerts
promoted by billboard companies.
•Many, if not most, of the crimes posted on the boards are actually long-
ago cold cases rather than emergencies.
•Flashing them across the landscape instills an exaggerated, even
deceptive fear of crime.
•AMBER alerts posted days or weeks after the fact are useless at saving
children abducted by criminals rather than feuding parents.
•Nearly all the “emergencies” broadcast are really just routine highway
alerts, and most states have existing message boards for that purpose.
.
35. Advertising firms planted thousands of
illegal billboards across Rome.
The billboards are often erected along
curbs, towering over head height and
obscuring bus stops and street signs.
One was so close to passing traffic on
Via Tuscolana that a moped driver and
his passenger were killed when they
collided with it.
There has been a proliferation of protest
websites and a demonstration outside
Rome's town hall, and more than 10,000
Romans have backed a new law to limit
the number of billboards.
36. "São Paulo’s a very vertical city,"
Vinicius Galvao, a journalist, said in
an interview with NPR. "That makes it
very frenetic. You couldn’t even
realize the architecture of the old
buildings, because they were just
covered with billboards and logos and
propaganda. And there was no
criteria."
Sao Paolo – 5 years after billboard
ban. most citizens and some
advertising entities report being quite
pleased with the now billboard-less
city. A survey this year found that a 70
percent of residents say the Clean City
Law has been "beneficial.”
37. What we envision for
our highways and
cities.
What we get
without nd
plan ning a
c ontrol.
38. Find out more, contact us, and get involved!
www.scenicalabama.org
www.scenicala.blogspot.com
Facebook: ScenicAlabama
Twitter: @scenicalabama
scenicalabama@bellsouth.net
scenicalabama@gmail.com
Editor's Notes
Hi, I’m Lisa Harris, president of Scenic Alabama. I am formerly executive director, and now serve as a volunteer. As background, I’ve been active in community planning as a member of the community. In addition, I was assistant to the planning & zoning committee of the Birmingham City Council, serving as proxy for a council member on the planning commission and other boards. My interest in billboards is simple: I believe that we deserve clean and beautiful communities, free of litter and clutter. As we say in our regular slide show, why is a coke can in the gutter considered trash, but one up on top of a pole isn’t?
Billboards are not a partisan issue, fortunately. Interestingly, some of the strongest supporters of scenic beauty, and opponents of billboards, have been Republicans, whom you might expect would see billboards as a pro-business issue.
But these leaders know the truth – that scenery sells, that businesses thrive in attractive and appealing environments, and that billboards add no value to a community.
Even in the wild west, where people can be very emphatic about doing what they want with their property, billboards cross that divide. This is one case where billboards not only interfered with this man’s view, but also the lighting actually interfered with his ranching operation. We find allies in all kinds of places.
The billboard wars have been going on for a hundred years, and we in the scenic movement are definitely the David to the industry and advertiser Goliath. However, there is still a grassroots effort, and in some places it breaks through. Some of these anti-billboard activists are concerned about the saturation of advertising and commercialism in public spaces.
The most alarming trend in the last couple of years has been the effort at a state level to eliminate local control over billboards. This is sometimes done in conjunction with legislation allowing digital billboards. These laws are being pushed by the big media companies, who are tired of having to answer to citizens at a local level.
Utah’s legislature got into the issue when Salt Lake City’s mayor tried to outlaw digital billboards.
The Reagan billboard company pushed a law that would prohibit all jurisdictions from enacting laws or enforcing existing ones on billboards. Eminent domain could be used, but not to prevent a digital conversion. As you can see, the fight became not only about billboards, but also about the state legislature running roughshod over city and county residents.
Last year, Missouri’s governor vetoed a law that would have allowed the industry to bypass local ordinances. However, a bill has just passed which would permit wholesale conversion of existing boards to digital, even nonconforming ones. We are waiting to see if this one will also be vetoed.
In response to a citizen referendum in Rapid City, South Dakota banning digital billboards, the industry pushed a state law that would forbid cities from banning digital boards. It was vetoed by the governor and the veto was upheld just narrowly.
In Arizona, where there was a legislative battle over digitals that I’ll talk about later, the law that was ultimately adopted included a provision to force cities to comply with state regulations, even if the city wants stricter rules.
A 2008 bill would have eliminated local sign regulations. In this case, it was an individual legislator concerned about political signs. We used it as a teachable moment on what would happen without sign regulation.
In Alabama right now, ALDOT enforcement gives local laws precedence. However, be warned. The time is now to talk to ALDOT, the governor, and your legislator, and to make sure they understand that you want your community to be protected. We have to be proactive.
The billboard industry has tried, ever since the HBA was passed, to change the rules on nonconforming billboards. We fought several efforts here in Alabama to allow nonconforming boards to be rebuilt if they were destroyed by natural causes. Right up the road in Daphne, there was a multi-year battle over the only billboard in town, which was destroyed in a hurricane and illegally rebuilt. The new nonconforming effort is to allow these boards to be changed to digital signs. These are often too close to each other, located in residential areas, or otherwise do not comply with the law. Yet companies are determined to force even more billboards on communities.
Missouri’s law, mentioned before, would allow up to 1,900 billboards to become digital. As you can see, the sentiment among citizens and the community was anti. But as is often the case, the legislature listens to different people.
This bill passed the Missouri Senate. The governor has vetoed similar bills in the past.
Digital billboards in general have become a huge issue. They are distracting, garish and overwhelming. They were also snuck in, as the industry often does, under the guise of upgrades. Easier to ask forgiveness than permission. In this case, easier to do it and then threaten to sue, rather than go through the permit process and risk being turned down.
Robson was the sponsor of a bill to legalize approximately 70 existing electronic billboards, nearly all of which are in the Phoenix area, following a 2011 court decision that ruled them illegal under a state highway beautification law. However, Gov. Jan Brewer last month vetoed Robson's bill, saying she wasn't willing to jeopardize the observatories and the estimated 3,000 jobs they provide. However, she encouraged the sides to reach a compromise, and Robson said Brewer aides participated in at least part of the talks. A bill signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer on Wednesday is a compromise negotiated by the billboard industry and observatory officials. It replaces an earlier version that Brewer vetoed. That measure would have legalized existing billboards ruled illegal under a November court ruling.
Several communities in Washington fought digital billboards. Even some legislators said they didn’t like them.
Aug 2011 Tacoma’s City Council called Tuesday for quickly removing at least 190 billboards, and possibly dozens more, reigniting a legal fight with sign owner Clear Channel Outdoor. The council voted 7-1, with Joe Lonergan opposed and Spiro Manthou absent, to tighten zoning restrictions, set a new deadline for removing signs that don’t comply and ban the modern versions of billboards that switch messages electronically. By keeping digital billboards out of Tacoma, the council backs out of a legal settlement with Clear Channel that it had approved unanimously last year. the council also received a late blast of comments from hundreds of residents who objected to adding a juiced-up form of commercial intrusion, visual blight, and driver distraction to the roadways. Such complaints were enough to persuade Tacoma’s city council and mayor to reverse an earlier decision allowing Clear Channel to convert many of its boards there, and face the inevitable lawsuit.
Circuit Judge Wally Eklund upheld Rapid City’s denial of Lamar Outdoor Advertising’s request to convert six of its current signs to digital billboards. Lamar made the request to convert the billboards to digital faces in April of 2011. Lamar’s request was made shortly before the June election where the City’s voters overwhelmingly approved prohibiting any new digital billboards. The City denied the permits because Lamar refused to obtain conditional use approval for the signs. Lamar appealed the denial of the permits to the City’s Zoning Board of Adjustment which upheld the denial. Lamar then appealed the Zoning Board’s ruling to the 7th Circuit Court in Rapid City. Lamar asked the Court for an order requiring the City to issue the permits. Lamar argued that the City was legally prevented from denying them the permits. In upholding the City’s denial of the permits, Judge Eklund ruled that substantial evidence supported the City’s decision and Lamar’s reliance on any past City approvals was not reasonable.
Roos commissioned the 360-square-foot mural in 2007 on the side of an apartment building at 1806 South 13th Street, near Soulard. It proclaims "End Eminent Domain Abuse" inside a red circle with a slash and is visible from Interstates 44 and 55. The city ordered Roos to remove it, saying it violated city sign regulations, and Roos and two groups he founded sued. In 2010, Autrey ruled that the city sign ordinance was content-neutral and therefore constitutional, but a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed in July. The court said that a sign the same size as Roos' would not be regulated if it were a religious, fraternal or civil symbol. The city code used the content of a sign to determine if it was, in fact, a "sign," the ruling said.
Roos commissioned the 360-square-foot mural in 2007 on the side of an apartment building at 1806 South 13th Street, near Soulard. It proclaims "End Eminent Domain Abuse" inside a red circle with a slash and is visible from Interstates 44 and 55. The city ordered Roos to remove it, saying it violated city sign regulations, and Roos and two groups he founded sued. In 2010, Autrey ruled that the city sign ordinance was content-neutral and therefore constitutional, but a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed in July. The court said that a sign the same size as Roos' would not be regulated if it were a religious, fraternal or civil symbol. The city code used the content of a sign to determine if it was, in fact, a "sign," the ruling said.
Now, I’m not a planner or a lawyer. But I have written ordinances, and I’ve helped cities craft ordinances that make sense. One of Scenic Alabama’s board members, Darrel Meyer, has written sign codes for many Alabama cities. I believe that the old notion of on and off premise signs does more harm than good. It sets up a content restriction which, when challenged, could take your whole ordinance down with it. Look at these two signs. They are basically identical, except for the message. It is much better to regulate signs as structures, where you allow so much sign per property based on zoning, lot size, and other considerations. Aesthetics can be one of the considerations. The sign can say anything, it just has to meet the code. Voila, no content restrictions. This also can help inoculate you against the bogus free speech claims that billboard companies make.
The industry has become in my opinion, bullying, over trees lately. It’s one thing to cut down some trees that grew up in front of your billboard. In fact, I’d rather have that, than the huge monopoles. But the billboard bullies have been caught poisoning trees, and passing laws that force communities to destroy their landscaping.
A 2008 law in Florida, pushed by Clear Channel, allowed the billboard company to decide if trees on public property had to go. They actually claimed that cities planted trees with the express purpose of blocking billboard views.
A bill allowing billboard companies to trim trees and other vegetation in public rights-of-way is awaiting a vote in the House. There are several problems with House Bill 226, beginning with the extra work and expense it would create for the Transportation Cabinet. No fiscal note has been prepared, analyzing the bill's costs to state government. But if Kentucky starts a program to benefit billboard companies and advertisers by trimming trees owned by taxpayers, the program should at least pay for itself. It certainly should create no new burdens for taxpayers and state agencies. It seems unlikely, though, that the proposed $200 application fee and $150 "view permit" fee would pay for overseeing the permit reviews, state inspections and reports mandated by HB 226. Also troubling, the bill gives the cabinet just 45 days to approve or reject a "view permit," and rejections could be quickly appealed at no cost. This is not a workable process, according to the Transportation Cabinet, which opposes the bill.The 45-day deadline would reward billboard companies that run out the clock by submitting incomplete applications. It's also hard to justify the bill's provisions for "non-conforming" billboards, those that would not be allowed under the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 or Kentucky's billboard law. Why should owners of non-conforming billboards be able to obtain permits to repair them and trim vegetation around them when the object should be to get rid of them? The billboard industry argues that the roadside advertising is good for businesses and tourism and that, under HB 226, certified arborists would be supervising the pruning and replacement plantings. Perhaps there is a way to balance the public's interest with that of the billboard companies, but this bill's not it.
Adams Outdoor Advertising, Charlotte’s largest billboard company, said Friday it will replant more trees than it will cut down under a new state law that allows companies to clear vegetation blocking signs. The announcement follows criticism from residents upset about the loss of trees along the city’s roadsides. A law that went into effect on March 1 allows billboard companies to ask the N.C. Department of Transportation for a permit to clear a 340-foot window in front of billboards along state roads. The previous window was 250 feet. But the change that has rankled the city of Charlotte is that the new law shifts power from local governments and places it in the hands of the N.C. DOT. If billboard companies remove trees, they have three options: They can replant the area with a state-approved landscaping plan; they can remove two nonconforming billboards anywhere in the state; or they can pay the state for the loss of the trees. Adams said over the next 18 months it will spend an estimated $3.5 million for work at an undetermined number of sites. To date, the state has approved 12 permits.
A whistleblower employee of Lamar Advertising Co. in Tallahassee, Fla. sued the company for firing him after he refused to kill any more trees. As he described it, after removing the magnetic Lamar logo from a company truck, he would set forth with a machete, a hospital mask and a container herbicide. It was all about being fast: Hack into the roots or base of the tree, douse the wound with herbicide, and get out of there. The Lamar executive who gave the orders, said Barnhart, called it “a hit and run.” His claims are supported by sworn testimony from Barnhart’s former supervisor, who admitted that he, too, had illegally poisoned. A second worker at Lamar Advertising has admitted poisoning and chopping down trees that block its billboards, according to deposition testimony obtained by Business Insider . The worker also testified that his regional manager ordered the policy in the Tallahassee, Fla., area.
Just a couple of miscellaneous notes on billboard industry marketing techniques.
Quite often, the company will promise the community or local government that they can use the digital signs for emergency messaging. In reality, other message systems work quite well, and when there’s not an emergency you can get all kinds of ugliness.
These are some of the ways you can counter the emergency messaging spiel. The most effective in my opinion is the fact that you can’t read the darn things anyway. Also want to mention the concept that billboards somehow are better for business. A recent study in Pennsylvania demonstrates that property values are lower around billboards. That study, Beyond Aesthetics, is available on our blog.
Billboards are not just a concern in the U.S. I remember several years ago, I was in an historic piazza in Florence Italy, and one entire side of the square was a giant billboard covering the beautiful façade of a building. My news feed shows stories of billboard blight in Indonesia, Australia, and others.
