Column: Electronic billboards a bad idea for Durham

By Larry Holt & John Schelp, Herald-Sun, 24 March 2009 [submitted version]

The billboard industry is campaigning hard to overturn Durham's existing ban on billboards. To counter the misinformation coming from industry, folks in the community are launching a new website today at http://supportdurhambillboardban.com/

On this site, you can see photos of billboards over homes in East Durham, video clips of blinking electronic billboards in action, and a thoughtful presentation supporting Durham's current ban on billboards.

Overturning Durham's ban on electronic billboards would open the door to big, bright, blinking billboards on I-85, 147, 15-501 and 70. Do we want large billboards at the top of tall metal poles -- flashing ads every eight seconds -- near homes, schools, parks and places of worship?

The site outlines many reasons to oppose the billboard industry's attempt to overturn our ordinance.

Billboard taxes and the local economy: Billboards are not taxed on the amount of revenue they generate. So, billboards contribute an extremely small amount to Durham's tax revenues.

Fairway Advertising paid just $2,605.60 in taxes last year. Just $2600 for the 46 billboards Fairway owns in Durham. Many single family residences in Durham pay a lot more than that.

Replacing standard billboards with electronic ones would generate 10 times more revenues for billboard owners -- from $2,000 to $14,000/month (Inc. magazine). And yet, tax revenues would remain tiny.

Adding insult to injury, if local officials wanted to remove an electronic billboard for any reason in the future, Durham taxpayers would have to compensate the owners for lost revenues.

Jobs: Durham would see few economic benefits from new jobs, since billboard companies employ very few people (mostly managers and sales personnel), and Fairway's offices are in Georgia and Raleigh. Fairway's impact on Durham's economy is negligible.

Public Service Ads: A common industry tactic for undermining public opposition to electronic billboards is to offer free billboard space to non-profit organizations. The industry has employed this tactic in Durham, asking City Council members to name their favorite local non-profits then approaching the groups and offering them free billboard space. This explains why you're suddenly seeing non-profit billboards around town.

The often unnoticed irony in this tactic is that the ads on electronic billboards change about 10,800 times/day. So, we can see PSAs for anti-drinking programs followed by ads for Bud Lite and Seagram's Vodka.

Billboards and the environment: Electronic billboards have a big carbon footprint -- equivalent to that of about 13 houses. At the same time citizens are being urged to use florescent light bulbs to reduce our individual carbon footprints, we're being urged to embrace billboards and their energy consumption?

Public safety: Anything that distracts a driver's eyes from the road for more than two seconds significantly increases the chances of a wreck. Electronic billboards are designed to attract drivers' attention and are an intrinsic safety hazard. Do we really want drivers on our increasingly congested thoroughfares intentionally distracted by attention-grabbing electronic billboards?

Aesthetics: Durham citizens, neighborhood groups, and local officials worked hard to reduce billboard blight along our highways and in our city. There have been a many, many letters to the editor from Durham citizens who oppose electronic billboards and a only a few supporting the billboard industry, with most of those coming from the Friends of Durham/Chamber of Commerce camp. Some of these letter writers have blamed local government for the deterioration of billboards in Durham. The fact is that current ordinances allow billboard companies to make annual improvements in order to maintain their billboards, but the industry has allowed its billboards to deteriorate anyway. These billboards may be ugly, but don't blame current ordinances or local government.

The Chamber's efforts on behalf of the billboard industry to overturn the current ban on electronic billboards, despite citizen outcry, begs the question: Why are the City and County giving the Chamber $128,000 in taxpayer subsidies/year so the Chamber can turn around and lobby local officials on behalf of outside interests that contribute little to our local economy or quality of life?

And it's inexcusable that billboard industry lawyers target a Planning staffer because the facts she presents don't support their client's attempt to overturn Durham's ban on electronic billboards (Officials' objectivity questioned, Herald-Sun, 3/08/09). Surely, the billboard industry isn't suggesting that relevant facts should be kept from the public?

As a recent article points out, there are plenty of compelling reasons not to overturn Durham's ordinance (Planner: Proceed with caution on billboard issue, Durham News, 2/07/09)...

* Fairway's billboards now produce about $2,600 in county tax revenue; switching some to digital "would still not generate significant revenue"

* Local government cannot require the signs to carry public-service messages

* Digital billboards could be found to violate the federal Highway Beautification Act

* Allowing digital billboards while safety studies are pending could expose Durham to liability for accidents

* Full sunlight reaches about 6,500 "nits;" a digital billboard can reach 10,000 nits.

Please visit our new website. Electronic billboards are a bad idea for Durham. Together, we can stop the billboard industry.

Support Durham billboard ban :: http://supportdurhambillboardban.com/

Some follow-up to Perplexed:

"It is no argument that this is a matter of preference to the corresponding communities."

And, as the survey cited in this article clearly shows, only 6% of Durham supports electronic billboards. 72% oppose them, with the balance undecided. Clearly, the preference of our community is that electronic billboards should not be allowed.

"cut down highway clutter of having billboards AND digital signage that send public service messages. "

Well, the digital signage has already been installed. You state that both electronic billboards and digital signs would cause too much clutter, I agree. Since we already have the digital signs, then we should not allow electronic billboards.

pepeheraldsun--Very good question to perplexed. For someone who initially seemed so confused about what the argument is about in Durham, he sure is up on billboard ordinances statewide. . . . .

Perplexed,

You know a lot about billboards. Say, you wouldn't happen to work for the billboard industry, would you?

Also, regarding other cities-- I don't care what other cities do. The will of Durhamites is very clear. Only 6% of residents support modifying our current billboard ordinances. 72% of residents oppose it. Clearly, Durham does not want electronic billboards. They actually don't want billboards at all--the aim of the current ordinance is complete removal of billboards.

Perhaps Raleigh, Chapel Hill, Cary and Morrisville have billboard ordinances however several other North Carolina cities allow digital billboards. These include Charlotte, Greensboro, Asheville and Wilmington. It is no argument that this is a matter of preference to the corresponding communities. However if these digital billboards would also broadcast public service announcements (as purposed) then these media outlets would cut down highway clutter of having billboards AND digital signage that send public service messages.

Also interesting to note that if Durham does not want ANY billboards in the community (as repeatedly interjected in this venue) it is odd that Duke University , The Durham Bulls, The Herald-Sun and even the city of Durham advertise on what is already in place.

Perplexed-

Other, more populous cities, do ban them. Raleigh bans them. They are a more populous, peer city.

This article clearly is touching on digital billboards restrictions prohibiting a company with moving or improving its roadside advertisements already in place. If you wish to launch arguments to fight all billboards, simply do so in that arena and not in this one.

Side question/notes:

If these digital billboards are such a menace/nuisance, then why have they not been banned in more populated areas other than Durham, NC? Also, opinions are like buttocks, most everyone has one/or two. It is arguments like this that have stalled the RDU area with not moving forward with progress.

Perplexed: Read up on the issue. Start with Bull City Rising's article on the issue, which includes some context: http://www.bullcityrising.com/2009/11/billboard-industry-releases-longexpected-proposal-to-loosen-durhams-outdoor-ad-restrictions.html#more

Also check out the following website: http://supportdurhambillboardban.com/ You'll find some history on the issue in Durham, many letters & articles by Durham citizens on the issue, and other information.

You write: "If Durham wants to do away with billboards in general, then I see the argument." That's exactly the point. Durham's current ban on billboards is, in fact, a reflection of Durham's desire to do away with billboards. It was the product of hard work by a lot of people trying to fight billboard blight. We're not fans of the current billboards and eventually we want them all gone. We emphatically don't want them replaced by electronic billboards--which are as much a visual blight as the current billboards.

Perplexed,

Two points. The first is when you want to convince people of the soundness of your arguments, calling them "ignorant", and mocking them and their community is a bad first step. Just a thought.

Unless, of course, you're just trying to be a blowhard. Then it's sound strategy.

Second, your arguments make absolutely no sense. Since you admittedly don't know the carbon footprint of either type of board, reaching conclusions based on that footprint either way is silly. Your statement that Durham must either 1) ban all billboards or 2) allow whatever ludicrous boards people will put up is nonsensical on its face. The old ordinance essentially WAS an attempt to ban billboards, while "grandfathering" the existing boards. It stopped the problem from growing, while respecting the rights of those who had already invested in boards.

It was and is a reasonable ordinance. I understand that you may have a little trouble recognizing reasonableness. I suggest trying harder in the future.

It is my opinion either paper or electric billboards would be considered a carbon footprint. The billboards already in place use electricity to light up the night and I have even observed some of these billboards lights illuminated during the day. The energy consumption on top of the paper needed to produce the present billboards I would interject to be a double blow to the environment. Perhaps it could be debated that the energy used to light the electric billboards 24/7 is equal to or greater than the costs/carbon footprints that is presently established. To forage trees, produce paper, glue the postings up and replace the outdated/damaged advertisements regularly on the already established billboards I would think would be more environmentally intrusive than electric, however I have not personally seen the figures to support this conviction.

If Durham wants to do away with billboards in general, then I see the argument. If Durham only wants to shout on a soapbox that the billboards already in place are better than something that is more pleasing to the eye and would probably be less taxing to our natural resources, then the argument is a paradox.

I guess I just don't see that embracing digital billboards with their huge carbon footprints is a step into a 21st century that will be livable.

Progressive community? Durham? Rrriiigggtttggghhh. City streets that are unpaved and half finished sidewalks. Somewhat dismal for a community that claims to be "progressive". Appears many would rather cut a tree down to produce the paper that eventually fills a landfill that tacks (curls from) the billboards already in place than move forward into the 21st century.

Pleeeeze!! -no more sleeeeeeze!!! BV

Learn more about the history of the billboard ban and why Durham residents want to keep digital billboards out of Durham at

http://supportdurhambillboardban.com

Durham is actually a progressive community, and you will not gain any supporters by calling us ignorant. We don't want this visual pollution and driving distraction. And we are not fooled by billboard industry pretense of generously providing a "service" when the real motive is to reap exponentially bigger profits without putting anything substantive back into the community in the form of jobs or tax revenues.

How sad that the residents of Durham, NC are so ignorant. Durham, NC already utilizes billboards and this would be a "green" approach to these already utilized advertisements since these digital billboards would cut down on the consumption of natural resources (paper). Also, these electronic billboards are already used in some areas of NC such as Charlotte. Not utilizing modern technology only makes Durham, NC appear that it is backwards in its thinking (again, ignorant).

It takes kahones to introduce such a proposal in the face of a resident poll that reveals 72% citizen opposition.

If anyone out there has information about campaign contributions to our city council & county commissioners by the billboard company, its employees, and/or its legal & marketing associations, please provide it on neighborhood and community listservs and blogs.

We need to encourage our elected officials to stand firm WITH Durham citizens who overwhelmingly don't want electronic billboards cluttering our community. We also need to hold them accountable if they have taken campaign funds from the billboard industry and vote against the interests and desires of Durham citizens who elected them.

DO NOT ALLOW BILLBOARD JUNK IN DURHAM. Enough already everywhere!

I feel sorry for the people of LA, California, who have these monstrous TV's within sight of their homes, flashing all night. Please don't change the rules just because that's what the industry wants.