HB628 is down, but not out

UPDATE: As of Friday, April 18, HB 628 has not been voted on. The Rules Committee has been asked to put it on the Special Order Calendar, which would put it on the floor of the House for a vote. The committee has not taken any action. Scenic Alabama supporters have been contacting Rules Committee members as well as their own Representatives to ask them not to put it on Special Order. We believe that since it is not an urgent matter, and it is opposed by many city officials and citizens, that it should not be given preference on the House calendar. The rules committee meets Tuesday; look for an update at that time.

House Bill 628, which I wrote about below, has been toned down quite a bit. Originally it would have eliminated permit fees for signs, which would have made sign ordinances impossible to enforce. Click here for a PDF of the original version.

The substitute bill (PDF here) is set for a third reading and possible vote on Tuesday, April 15. We are still opposed to it, and so is the Alabama League of Municipalities.

We are encouraging people to contact their Representative in the House and ask them to vote NO on HB 628. Those on our email list will be getting an action alert and a web contact form, or you can use the following information to call today or tomorrow. We've got a good chance of beating this bill - please take action to help!

ACTION ALERT:

HB628 would prohibit cities from charging permit fees on certain signs, which could negatively impact a city’s ability to enforce its sign ordinance.

This bill is scheduled for a possible House vote on Tuesday, April 15.

HB 628 as it was originally introduced prohibited a political subdivsion from charging a fee for a sign permit. This would have been disastrous for cities which control signs, since without a permit fee there would be no enforcement mechanism. It would have created a situation where anyone could put up any kind of sign (including billboards) on any piece of private property, and you would only be able to go later and tell them to take it down. As we have seen in numerous lawsuits by billboard companies in that situation, after-the-fact action is very difficult.

Scenic Alabama members and supporters responded to action alerts and contacted committee members as well as their own legislators. City officials contacted the Alabama League of Municipalities, which opposed the bill. We requested a public hearing in committee, which was held March 25.

At that meeting, Scenic Alabama presented a packet of information showing what the results could be if this bill was adopted. Speaking against the bill were representatives from Scenic Alabama, the League of Municipalities, and representatives of cities including Orange Beach, Mobile and Birmingham. One person spoke in favor of the bill: a representative of the Alabama Association of Realtors.

Committee members said they were surprised at the outcry over the proposed bill; the committee chair stated he received more calls on this issue than any other since he had been in office. He postponed the bill so that all parties could meet again and discuss it.

At that subsequent meeting, it became clear that the main issue that the sponsor wanted to address was signs like political signs in someone’s yard. The Alabama Realtors Association was interested because of “For Sale” signs. We explained that sign ordinances exempt these kinds of signs and that no one even requires a permit for them, much less charges for them. The sponsor then came up with a substitute which applies to temporary signs.

The subsitute HB628 was sent to the House with a favorable recommendation from the Committee, and is now set for its third reading and a vote.

Scenic Alabama remains opposed to the bill, as does the Alabama League of Municipalities. We know how importat it is to cities to have a strong, enforceable sign ordinance. Good sign controls result in an uncluttered, attractive area where you can find your way easily and which appeals to residents and visitors. Any law that restricts a city’s ability to enforce its
sign ordinance is a bad law, particularly when there is no balancing benefit.

SAMPLE LETTER OR PHONE TALKING POINTS:

I would like to ask you to vote NO on HB 628, the “Private Property Signage Act.” This law could weaken local sign ordinances, which would have a negative impact on my community.

The subsitute bill before you would keep a city from charging for permits on some signs. However, permits are the way that sign ordinances are enforced, and a permit fee is the way a city could choose to make sure those permits are obtained. Sign ordinances exempt the kinds of temporary signs that are addressed in HB 628, which makes the bill unnecessary.

Thus, HB628 would make it harder for a city to enforce a sign ordinance, without conferring any benefit on citizens.

Citizens have worked very hard to keep our neighborhoods, business districts and towns looking nice for the benefit of our residents and visitors. As part of that effort, our city governments pass zoning ordinances and sign codes. These are adopted because the public, that is we the citizens, want to have some control over how our neighborhoods look. The sign ordinances address a real need for an orderly and attractive community.

I ask you to support our local communities who want to control signs by the means which best suit the community. Please vote NO on HB 628.

We made a difference in Montgomery!

...but it's not over yet. Read on:

I ended up spending two days, Tuesday and Wednesday, at the Alabama State House. We had public hearings on two bills that would affect sign controls. It’s not over, but we slowed things down a little and got some breathing room.

Our main goal was to make sure legislators understand that cities and citizens take sign control seriously. I know we did that - Rep. Bill Dukes said he got more calls on HB628 (which would have pretty much eliminated sign regulations) than any proposal since he’s been in the legislature.

Both HB296 (Real Estate Signs) and HB628 (Sign Permits) were held over by their respective committees. We will be meeting next week on these bills.

First, a summary of the legislation, then I’ll give you a play by play of the legislative hearings.

HB296 and SB268 are the same bill, introduced in both houses on behalf of the Alabama Realtors Association. They would add to the Real Estate Licensure law the “right” for Realtors to put up signs (on the property and off-premises “directional” signs) and prohibiting cities from imposing any kind of permit requirement or fee them. We had several objections to the bill, most importantly that it interfered with a city’s regulatory authority. The Realtors were primarily concerned with having to pay a fee for permits.

HB628 would establish a “right” to put a sign on private property and would prohibit any kind of permit or fee for signs. It would have made it impossible to enforce any kind of sign regulation. It’s pretty obvious why Scenic Alabama objected - billboards are, after all, located on private property. Cities across the state as well as individuals objected because they want sign controls in their communities.

So here’s what happened.....

The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, chaired by Sen. “Walking Wendell” Mitchell, had a public hearing on Tuesday afternoon on HB296, the Realtor sign bill. We had asked Sen. Mitchell for the public hearing, and he obliged and also scheduled it for after Spring Break.

(It should be noted that when we first heard about this bill, it was on the committee agenda that very day and would have passed if Scenic Alabama hadn’t intervened. As it turned out, the Senate bill had passed the committee some weeks ago, before we were all aware of it.)

I spoke first, and expressed our concerns, which were also in an information packet. We also gave them all the comments we had received against the bill. (Thank you to everyone who sent comments)

Speaking in favor was Greg Masood, who is the lobbyist for the Alabama Realtors Association. He told the committee that “one of our members about a year ago heard that Owens Crossroads was going to put a permit fee on real estate signs and we felt we needed to take action.” (This information is inaccurate - if he had looked into this, as I did, he would find out that no such thing has happened or is planned.)


By the time of the committee hearing, the Realtors Association had an amendment that took out any reference to permits and said only that a city could not impose a “fee” for a Realtor sign. I told Mr. Masood that it sounded like Realtors just didn’t want to have to pay a fee for something even if everyone else did, and he nodded his head. We still objected to the bill because (1) it established a “right” in a licensing bill that impacted zoning ordinances and (2) permits are how cities enforce regulations, and fees are essential to cover the costs of enforcement.

Plus, although this isn't relevant to sign ordinances per se, the whole law was only for Realtors. If you were selling your house yourself, you wouldn't get this special dispensation.

Two representatives from the City of Homewood spoke. That city is the only one that has any kind of permits for real estate signs, and it is only for off-premises signs. They told the committee that the city has had this arrangement for six years.

We only had about 15 minutes for the public hearing (the meeting was held to an hour and previous items took up a lot of time) and at the end, Sen. Mitchell held over the bill for a week so that we could “work it out.” It is supposed to be back on the committee agenda on Tuesday April 1.

HB628: the adventure begins

When I was there on Tuesday I stopped by Rep. Bill Dukes’ office to see if he had received our request for a public hearing on HB628. Yes, he had, and, in fact, it was on the agenda for the next day. I was a bit surprised, but we sprang into action and once I had internet access we implemented “Operation Save Our Sign Codes.”

I urged city officials to call the Legislature and the Alabama League of Municipalities. The League was very responsive - they had a letter in opposition at the Wednesday meeting, and their extremely capable government affairs person, Greg Cochran, got on top of the situation. A good number of people sent comments to me for the hearing.

I prepared an information packet for the committee that included a couple of pictures of “what if” there were no sign codes. Rep. McClendon, the lead sponsor of the bill, called them “inflammatory” but I felt they were “accurate” You can see them here.(PDF)

When we got to the House City & County Government committee on Wednesday, Rep. McClendon had submitted amendments that completely changed the bill. I feel certain this was a direct response to the outpouring of opposition from city officials, planners and citizens. All of the committee members seemed surprised at how many people had called on this matter. If nothing else, this has made them more aware of at least this aspect of planning.

Rep. McClendon said that it was not his intention to do away with sign codes. He just wanted to make sure that you could put a political sign in your front yard without having to get a permit. He did not explain whether or not this had ever happened. His amendment took out the part of the bill that said it was a property right to have signs, and only said that political signs could be displayed on private property without requiring a permit fee. They would still have to abide by sign regulations. Even with those changes, there were questions about whether you could single out political signs and whether it would affect billboards.

Rep. Dukes said that after talking to the sponsor and the rest of us, that he was going to hold the bill over but he wanted to proceed with the public hearing so that all comments would be heard.

The people speak

The only speaker in favor of the bill was Greg Masood representing the Alabama Realtors Association. He said he had worked with Rep. McClendon on the bill and he compared this bill to HB296 about real estate signs. He also said that this bill had to do with private property rights.

The first opponent was Randy Braden from the Alabama Department of Transportation. He is the person in charge of enforcing the Highway Beautification Act. He said his main concern was that the bill did not impact billboards that came under the highway beautification act. He said that the state has a permit fee and renewal fee for those signs and he wanted to make sure that this law would not eliminate those fees.

I spoke next for Scenic Alabama. By this point I had developed a bad case of laryngitis from a cold and could only croak out a few words. I told the committee that what we had to say was in the packet, that we wanted strong sign controls and that there were a lot of variables that needed to be considered. I wanted them to know that it is a large leap from “my front yard” to “private property” and that they should be careful of how broad the legislation was.

Greg Cobb and Scott Cook from Homewood were back for this public hearing - Homewood has been very active in defending sign controls. Greg said that they were there because of the original bill, but regarding political signs they are allowed on private property and Homewood does not charge a permit fee for them. Scott said that there might be a length of time restriction so that it doesn’t become a permanent sign.

Greg Cochran from the Alabama League of Municipalities said there still needed to be some tweaking to make sure the law did not apply to billboards. He did not think any city charged for signs in yards anyway.

Beth Marietta Lynes, representing Mobile, and Kizzie Long, representing Birmingham, both spoke as well.

And in conclusion...
All in all, it was an interesting experience and I think we made a big splash in Montgomery. Thank you to everyone who sent comments, or came to the meetings. It’s not over yet, and we have to keep a very close eye on our lawmakers and on the interest groups, but in the end I think planning principles and community control will prevail.

10,000 Billboards is enough!

Just got back from a trip to Denver, Colorado. While I was out there, I met with one of the Board members of Scenic Colorado, who was quite impressed with the success we've had in Alabama. We really do have a lot to be proud of, but more work ahead.

One of the things that struck me was how few billboards Colorado actually has - they did a complete survey a couple of years ago, and there were fewer than 2,300 IN THE WHOLE STATE - not just interstates, but everywhere. Alabama has 10,000 billboards - and that is just on the interstates and major highways! It works out to 1.5 billboards per mile. That doesn't even count state roads, county roads and city roads. Don't you think 10,000 billboards is enough?

For me personally, Alabama has it hands down over Denver for scenic beauty. Not to insult Rockies lovers, but a distant horizon of snow-covered peaks does not make my heart sing like a view of forest-covered mountains or a beautiful lake. Yet we continue to cover up this beauty as if it did not matter!

Here's what you can do, if you agree that 10,000 billboards is enough: Call your legislator and ask him or her to support Scenic Alabama legislation. Find your House member here and your Senate member here. We are proposing two bills this year. One would not allow any new billboards to be constructed on interstates and major roads. The other would increase the application fee and renewal fee (right now they are a paltry $25 and $10) for billboards, with the funds going to ALDOT for implementing and enforcing the Highway Beautification Act.

We're talking to legislators about signing on as a sponsor, so anyone with a suggestion please comment or email us so we can follow up.

Remember: 10,000 billboards is enough! Let's make sure we can see our state's beautiful places.