09-10-07 Item 7D, Clear Channel - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~) _/ ^/vv\re IHLLIIOAROS in tbe DIGITAL AGE continued "New digital technologies provide us with the capability to execute both general market and targeted advertising campaigns that consumers can't mute, fast forward or erase," he said. [Emphasis added.] When digital comes to town, local governments are often caught off guard. As was the case in Vestavia Hills, billboard owners are not always upfront about what they are doing, and the technology may be installed without notice. But in a rare victory for billboard opponents, the Vestavia Hills Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) ordered Lamar to turn off the lights and shut its board down-at least until they could hold a hearing for a zoning variance. The board ruled that the switch had been made under "false pretenses." Had Lamar asked for permission to add digital animation, the board likely would have said no, particularly for that location, zoning officials said. In fact, Vestavia Hills' new sign ordinance, which was under con- sideration at the time, would outlaw this kind oj sign entirely. 7he BZA later denied the variance request, and the billboard company jiled a lawsuit which is now in the county court system. In the meantime. the digital board has been covered with a traditional sign. A permit request to instaU a digital face on the other side of the sign was denied. City officials in several Minnesota communities were likewise surprised last year when digital billboards began to appear on Clear Channel and Lamar sign structures. In most cases, the companies that leased the signs had sought building permits only to upgrade them, omitting from their applications any indi- cation they planned to hang digital displays on those structures after the upgrades. Their chosen locations included communities with some of the strongest billboard prohibitions. Clear Channel's strategy backfired, especially in Minnetonka, which for more than 41 years has carried a prohibition on illu- minated signs that change in color or intensity. The city pulled the plug on the signs, issued stop-work orders, and then defeated an effort by Clear Channel to obtain an injunction. .As Judge Lloyd Zimmerman later found, "there is substantial evidence to support Minnetonka's claim that Clear Channel avoided disclosing its plans to deploy LED billboards in the City of Minnetonka, and operated 'under the radar' in order to get the billboards up and running, in order to meet its expansion and profit goals for 2006." Meanwhile, one Minnesota community after another has adop- ted a moratorium on digital display devices to temporarily protect themselves against a repeat of the companies' subterfuge. It's not unusual for billboard operators to erect digital signs even when State-Federal agreements or local ordinances pro- hibit them, knowing that local enforcement can be difficult due to lax or inefficient enforcement or the prospect of the lengthy and costly litigation that inevitably follows. The Texas Department of Transportation's State-Federal agree- ment dearly prohibits digital billboards. In fact, when state transportation officials requested darification from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to see if they ccnld allow the boards, they were told in no uncertain terms they could not. "While the technology for LED displays did not exist at the time of the agreement, the wording in the agreement dearly , L prohibits such signs," the FHWA wrote to Texas transportation officials in a letter dated March 15,2006. Nonetheless, LED signs have gone up in several cities around the state. And in a recent media interview, Clear Channel Communications CEO Mark Mays made it clear his company had big plans for Texas, particularly San Antonio. "The question becomes how big an opportunity it will be over the next 10 years," he said. "Is it going to be half the signs in San Antonio, is it going to be a quarter of the signs in San Antonio or is it going to be 10 percent?" "If Texas is going to allow this, the public should be involved," said Margaret Lloyd, policy director for Scenic Texas. "In my judgment, we need at least three things: first, a safety study funded by a neutral, objective party; second, a cost study to determine the taxpayer burden if these signs have to be con- demned for highway widenings; and finally, a public opinion survey to determine if citizens want these signs to be erected along their publicly funded highways." One state where the industry hasn't been successful in getting what it wants is Kentucky, where state transportation regulations prohibit both Tri-Vision and LED signs. Tom Fitzgerald, director of the Kentucky Resources Council, said the outdoor advertising industry has tried on several occa- sions to push through legislation that would allow them to add the new technology, but lawmakers in the House have stood firmly against it. They came closest in 2004, when the industry had someone insert language allowing Tri-Vision signs into a bill that focused on tree-cutting around billboards. "That bill got through the Senate and into the House before people realized the provision was even in there," Fitzgerald said. But the House leadership killed the bill, as it has done to tree-cutting bills consistently over the years. 1his year, a bill that would have allowed electronic billboards and Tri-Vision signs was introduced but died in committee. "We've not really had a toe-to-toe fight on electronic bill- boards yet," Fitzgerald said. "I believe there are strong public safety issues at stake." For many outraged citizens, traditional concerns about "litter on a stick," have now been supplanted by the prospect of con- fronting "PowerPoint on a stick" along their communities' road- ways. The advent of digital technology has opened a new front in the battle against blight-with more at stake than ever before.