Digital Billboard loses, we hope not for the last time

The Jefferson County Board of Zoning Adjustments voted (gif file, zoom to read) yesterday unanimously to not let Lamar Advertising put up a giant electronic billboard near Brookwood Hospital. There's a regular billboard right now - on the east side of U.S. 31 going up the hill from Lakeshore to Vestavia Hills. It is hard to imagine a worse place for a Jumbotron TV screen, and the BZA agreed.

I unfortunately missed the first few minutes of Lamar's presentation to the Board, but I did catch the part where Tom Traylor said that a digital billboard there was not only a good idea but "essential" to the community. As they always do, they talked about Amber Alerts, and putting up pictures of wanted criminals. (I have some answers to that - including how the heck you're supposed to remember all that information if you're paying attention to the road - which I will expand on in a future post.)

This particular case brings up the bigger issue of billboard companies finding every possible pocket of unincorporated land and putting up billboards, usually within a city that doesn't allow them. They just put up a digital billboard on Highway 150 in Hoover, on land that's still in the county. I would not be surprised if they've approached the owners of land down the road that's for sale, about doing the same thing. (As of this week, there were no permit requests, but I will keep an eye out.)

The county has a cap on the number of billboards, but all that means is that they can take a billboard down somewhere (maybe on U.S. 78 where it is bypassed by Corridor X) and put one up in a new location. It's a huge loophole that is letting Lamar basically thumb its nose at cities like Hoover and Vestavia that don't want billboards.

The only real solution is for the county to change their sign law to not allow new billboards, and to have an immediate moratorium on digital boards. Otherwise, citizens will continue to get their right to peaceful enjoyment of their property trampled on.

We tried a couple of years ago to get the County Commission to consider this, but came up against a brick wall. It will take a lot more public pressure to get them to take action. If you want to stop the billboard companies from taking over your city, join us! We can do it with your help.

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.

There's no escape

I just returned from a two-week trip to Italy, including several days in the beautiful city of Florence (Firenze in Italian) and a day trip through Tuscany. From a scenic perspective, Italy is very different from the U.S., because it is almost entirely "civilized." The cities have been there for a thousand years, and the countryside has been cultivated and tamed for even longer. You don't find many vistas of forests or wide-open spaces. But the views are still lovely in their own way, and I was struck by the colors - the yellows and oranges of the autumn vineyards were reflected in the ochers and terracottas of the buildings.

I was also struck, unfortunately, by the same intrusive commercialism of billboards, even in what I would consider sacred spaces. Here is a picture from the Piazza di la Repubblica, one of the main plazas in Florence for both residents and tourists. An entire building is covered by a billboard - right in the heart of a city that is known for its art and architecture.

On our trip through Tuscany, we would be out in what seemed like the middle of nowhere, and there would be a billboard advertising a vacuum cleaner or a car. The billboards were smaller than those we're used to, but they are right next to the road which made them very distracting. They also were easy to mistake for directional signs. They certainly interfered with the enjoyable drive through a scenic area.

I was not able to take any billboard pictures in Tuscany, but I did take some on other drives. As you can see, these are smaller, but because they are so close to the road they are very distracting.


This next picture was taken on an exit from the autostrada (similar to the interstate). They are so cluttered that you probably would just ignore all of them. It should also be noted that Italian drivers are, in my opinion, insane (my mother is Italian, so I let her do all the driving) and they don't need ANYTHING to distract them! I think these billboards just become a visual background and people who live there don't notice them.

Which brings me to a realization about what Lady Bird Johnson was trying say. We don't really notice the beauty that's right around us. If the stunning scenery has become mundane, if we've become used to it, then it really doesn't matter if you put up a big sign in front of it. That's why groups like Scenic Alabama exist - to make people aware, and then to help the community do what it can to keep the billboards out of the way of the scenery.

A well-deserved honor for a Scenic Alabama friend

I first met Bill Brinton on a trip to Atlanta to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals en banc hearing on a lawsuit that a billboard company had filed against the city of Hoover. Bill is an attorney based in Jacksonville, Florida, and is on the board of Scenic America. He also serves on the American Planning Association's amicus committee, and had written an amicus brief for the appeal that Scenic Alabama signed on to.

I was impressed not only with his knowledge of sign and billboard issues, but also with his very personable style. He is generous with his time and expertise, and has been a good friend to Scenic Alabama and to me personally.

Bill was given the first ever Prize for Civic Engagement by the Community Foundation in Jacksonville this week, for his decades of tireless work to protect trees, fight billboard blight and improve communities. The press release from the foundation has many details (some of which I learned for the first time!) about how his life's work has made his community, and really our country, a better place to live. (Excerpts below, click here for full release.)

It's folks like Bill Brinton that give us the encouragement to keep fighting the forces of blight and ugliness - and to make our little corner of the world a beautiful place. Congratulations, Bill!

JACKSONVILLE, Florida - The Community Foundation in Jacksonville awarded the first Prize for Civic Engagement to Jacksonville attorney William D. Brinton during the Foundation's annual meeting Tuesday, September 25, 2007.

The Prize for Civic Engagement recognizes and encourages citizens in Northeast Florida who speak out courageously for the common good on matters of civic importance....

In 1987, [Brinton] spearheaded a petition drive to put a strong billboard ban on the ballot for vote by the citizens; it passed by a landslide. In 1990, he organized an initiative that successfully placed a two-term limit on Jacksonville City Council members. And in 2000, he launched yet another petition drive calling for developers to plant, or pay to plant, a tree for every one of a certain size they cut down. It, too, won by a landslide.

...Sherry Magill, president of the Jessie Ball duPont Fund [said], "We are so mired in our roles as taxpayers that we forget to think about our roles as citizens…. Bill Brinton is a true citizen hero. He keeps the dream of active citizenship alive." ....

Brinton ...serves on the board of directors of Scenic America, Inc., based in Washington, D.C., and is the present and past chair of Scenic America's Billboard Control Committee. He is the co-founder of Citizens for a Scenic Florida, Inc. and Scenic Jacksonville, Inc. He served as chairman of the Jacksonville Landscape Commission. In 2005, Brinton received Jacksonville Community Council, Inc.'s first Milestone Award for Citizen Advocacy in recognition of his efforts over the past three decades.

Sao Paulo bans billboards as visual pollution

The world's fourth-largest city, Sao Paulo, Brazil, has banned billboards. The city's conservative mayor pushed to remove nearly 15,000 advertising signs. He said in a press conference that the city should fight all kinds of pollution: air, water, sound and visual. If an international city with a pro-business mayor can clean up its act, then maybe some of our bigger Alabama cities should do the same (I'm talking to you, Birmingham!).

Click here for a 10-minute news report on the Sao Paulo ban posted at YouTube. Some of the comments are interesting, including one that calls outdoor advertising "corporate graffiti."

Click here to read an article posted on AdBusters.

Bright Birmingham Billboards - it won't be pretty!

The new LED Billboard is now up on Highland Ave. in Birmingham, and I suspect it's going to catch a lot of people by surprise once it is turned on. It is actually facing north, so if you're going South on the Red Mountain Expressway, it will glare at you as you come out from under the Highland Ave. overpass.

Not only that, but if you shop, eat out, work, worship or live here, this Jumbotron TV screen will be staring you in the face 24/7.

The new LED Board will be brightly visible from all these places.

This is a view from the Highland Ave. Western - imagine it at night with a bright screen.



These monstrosities can be stopped, but it takes a city council that can look beyond petty politics to what is best for the people of the city. Unfortunately, Birmingham's city council would not even implement a temporary moratorium on digital boards so that they could look at these types of signs. We also informed the Alabama Department of Transportation, because two more electronic boards are going up in Malfunction Junction (where it's so dangerous that the speed limit was cut to 50 mph). We never received a response.

The Federal Highway Administration is doing an unbiased study on electronic boards and their effects on driver safety. There is no credible evidence at present as to the safety of these signs,and it seems irresponsible to allow them to go up until we know they're safe.

On behalf of Scenic Alabama, we are sorry we were not able to stop these things in Birmingham. But you can stop any more from going up, by contacting your elected officials and tell them your city needs to ban electronic billboards - NOW.