Digital Billboards: The Conversation That Won't Go Away ...
Clear Channel Outdoor, the company that owns and maintains all those big billboards that have become such… iconic fixtures around Tacoma is hard at work to get Washington cities the right to allow Clear Channel’s digital billboards on the roads within their limits.
The digital billboards are not allowed along state highways at this time, but Clear Channel is working to reverse that. According to an article from The News Tribune, the City of Kent agrees, along with possibly (maybe) a few other municipalities.
On the other side of the issue, opponents worry that allowing the signs in some places would open the door for the advertising giant to fight cities in court, much as it has fought Tacoma in recent years.
There are bills in both the State House and Senate that would allow the glowing signs along state highways within city and town limits. A vote is scheduled today in the House Transportation Committee. According to the TNT, although a vote is not yet scheduled for the Senate Transportation Committee, both of that panel’s co-chairs support the bill.
Interstate highways wouldn’t be affected one way or another, and the state law won’t supersede Tacoma’s sign ordinance, but it could open up some new conversations for potential billboard placements in the city. That said, there haven’t been any conversations between the City and Clear Channel, and any changes would go through the entire public input process prior to any local code changes.
For a good deeper look, check out this recent Crosscut article. Despite the fact that the bill will likely not directly affect Tacoma roads, it could have impacts on roads near us, and the feel of our region.
Clear Channel defends the billboards, saying they will stay motionless for an average of eight seconds, and emphasizing cities’ right to refuse the signage. Opponents call the billboards “visual blight” (among other epithets), and emphasize worries over the company’s heavy handed skillful way of going about “convincing” municipalities to see things its way.
What do you think? If it doesn’t affect Tacoma’s roads, do you care? Should we get back together with CC?
Filed under: Legislation, Digital Billboards, Billboards
9 comments
R RR Anderson February 7, 2013
there is a pestilence on these lands
E Erik B. February 7, 2013
Hopefully, legislators will not be influenced to allow digital billboard blight to be strewn across Washington. Tacoma has jurisdiction over only a very small part of I-5.
F Flannimal February 7, 2013
Just sent this off to Jenkins, Fey and Darneille:
Good Afternoon Mr Fey
I am writing to provide you with my opinion of the proposed legislation (HB 1408 and SB 5304)allowing digital billboards along state highways in our state of Washington. I have also copied Ms Darneille and Ms Jenkins.
I was an active participant in the fight to keep Digital Billboards out of Tacoma. I attended the Tacoma City Council meetings where I voiced my opinion…and watched you along with six other council members uphold the will of the people and ban digital billboards in a vote of 7-1.
I am opposed to this legislation and respectfully request that you do not pass this into law. I have two main objections to allowing digital billboards along state highways, 1) safety and 2) jobs.
1) Safety first. We have driving laws in our state to protect people and reduce the risk of accident, injury and death. Limiting our speed and not talking on cell phones are the two most prominent. The reason for these laws is that the faster a person drives the less time they have to react to changing conditions, and cell phones are distractions that can prevent a person from reacting at all. Why then, would we allow a third party to add distractions on the side of the road? Yes, it is true that the “flip-rate” for the digital billboards would be at least 8 seconds. but the human eye is attracted to motion, and every 8 seconds drivers will be momentarily distracted. A moment is all it takes to rear end a car. At best, this results in a traffic delay. At worst people are killed. There are enough distractions in life, do we need to add distractions to our state highways? I vote for safety over profit.
2) How many people are employed by billboard companies to change the advertisements on billboards? It takes time, it needs to be done periodically, and the employees must live within reasonable distance of the signs (presumably within state). Now, Digital billboards are electronic and computer controlled which means the advertisements can be uploaded and monitored from an office….using far fewer employees. The billboard companies will tell you that this is more efficient. Efficient for the company, they can charge more money for more advertisements and pay fewer people. More profit for the company. And if that company is not located, or only has one office, in Washington, how much of that extra “efficiency” money will actually stay in our state?
Thank you for taking the time to read my email. I truly hope you will vote NO on this legislation. Safety first.
Thank you
C Chalky White February 7, 2013
Speaking of things that won’t go away, does anyone know how many static billboards are in Tacoma?
F Flannimal February 7, 2013
The response from Jeanie Darneille:
“Thank you for your email about the bills which would allow cities and towns to grant permission for digital billboards. I have seen examples of these on Highway 5 near Fife, and am completely opposed to allowing more of them to be established in the state. I find all the arguments against it (visual blight, light pollution, traffic hazard) completely compelling, and you can count on me to be a “no” vote when it comes before the Senate.
Thanks again, and please don’t hesitate to let me know when other issues come up that are of interest to you. “
V Vince February 8, 2013
What a bunch of hooey. Any of these people ever been to Las Vegas? Signs as big as houses yet they don’t seem to have a problem with people getting distracted and running in to each other.
I look at it this way, it is less street lights needed for the roads and lights up foggy mornings pretty good.
N nwcolorist February 8, 2013
As Bob Dylan said, “ the times they are a-changin’”.
With reasonable restrictions, bring on the digitals.
E Elizabeth February 10, 2013
Next step from the Clear Channel playbook: Clear Channel offers the city or state a revenue-share in exchange for the right to put signs on city/state property. Who could complain – we needs revenue! Now the city/state, the only party who can enforce billboard restrictions, is ‘partnered’ with Clear Channel. You’ll start hearing how helpful digital signs are for public service announcements, even though they aren’t. There’s no turning back at that point, nevermind the safety hazards, the effect on property value, driving away business that would prefer to do business in a less-seedy looking place and Clear Channel’s propensity for litigation if anyone should seek in the future to remove these signs.
G Garrett February 10, 2013
I am completely opposed to these billboards. It’s bad enough I have to recycle enough wasted junk mail, but at least I have an option not to look at it. This urban blight, this Las Vegas style ugliness, invades privacy and makes streets less safe.
Garrett