Notes from the Planning Commission Hearing on Billboard Code Revisions
Exit133’s coverage of this meeting is provided by our newest contributor, Rick Jones. Enhanced by his experience as a journalist and a businessman with membership on multiple local boards, Rick’s reports and articles will primarily focus on Tacoma politics and business. We are fortunate to welcome this lifelong resident of the Puget Sound region to our team, and we look forward to bringing you more of his updates from meeting halls across the City. – Dan
At the City of Tacoma Planning Commission’s Public Hearing Wednesday evening (3/16/11), a large number of citizens showed up to express their disagreement with the settlement Tacoma has made with Clear Channel (hereinafter referred to as C.C.) regarding the replacement of static billboards with digital billboards. Not one of the 34 people who spoke before the commission during the public comment portion of the meeting was in favor of the digital signs. Passionate but civil, each speaker expressed in no uncertain terms their desire to not allow Tacoma to become “another Reno”. In fact, it seemed that those in attendance were so against the new digital billboards they would sooner leave the current static billboards in place.
Public safety was a consistent element in the arguments against the digital signs, as was the simple light pollution they would create. Nearly all the speakers also stated this was a time for Tacoma to fight the legal battle rather than surrender to a “faceless corporate outsider.”
Shelley Kerslake, attorney for the city, stated that the code regarding billboards had to be changed to implement the settlement agreement reached between C.C. and the City. If the code is not changed, C.C. may revive its case. She also stated that the City was instructed by the City Manager to negotiate with C.C. once the lawsuit against the city was filed.
Tonight’s hearing is but the latest episode in a lengthy saga. In 1997, the City of Tacoma passed an ordinance revision that required the removal of billboards within the city within 10 years. The new ordinance gave the billboard owner, i.e. C.C, 10 years to remove their billboards. In 2007 (10 years later), C.C. filed a lawsuit against the City – and its ordinance – claiming its First Amendment Rights regarding free speech were being violated (remember the “Constitution Matters” billboards?). Rather than fight a lengthy legal battle, the City agreed to a settlement with C.C., whereby the static billboards C.C. owns would be removed and replaced by digital billboards. Physically, the quoted difference would be an 85% reduction in billboards.
The council’s decision to accept the settlement was a last minute addition to the agenda of the 7/27/10 council meeting, leaving very little time for public comment. At the time only one person – R.R. Anderson – was aware enough to comment before the council. As the Council pushes to approve the code changes by this summer, two of the City’s neighborhood councils have already expressed significant disagreement with the provisions.
Among those who spoke to the commission tonight were:
Kevin Freitas
Britton Sukys
Jori Adkins
Susan Cruise
Sharon Winters
Douglas Schafer
Marshall Hampton
Chris Tubig
Stacy Weiss
Jill Jensen
Rob Jensen
Tricia DeOme
Patricia Menzies
Jason Atherton
Brain Jacobs
Audrey Jensen
Denny Faker
Kirsten Lawson
William Dickson
Eric Heller
Joni Rasmussen
Holly Campbell
R.R. Anderson
Erik Bjornsen
Raquel LaPointe
Paul Burke
Louise hall
Dina Walkup
Scott McElhanney
Edie Cook
Filed under: Billboards
12 comments
R RR Anderson March 17, 2011
WERE YOU AWARE OF IT?
The solitary man who spoke in favor of giving billboard property owners more of a voice in these dealings was old man Wilhelm Dickson of Wm. Dickson Co. the company Eric Anderson paid to tear apart the historic Luzon Building. The dude has about 6 billboards on his property.
K Kirsten Lawson March 17, 2011
It was good to see so many people at the meeting last night. It seems to me that, after listening to the testimonies, that neither C.C. nor C.o.T. made any effort to determine whether or not the proposed digital billboard sites were in the proscribed 200-300 foot buffer zone of residential and open space areas. I forgot to point out last night that Proposed Area 16 abuts Wapato Park on 72nd. My fellow walkers and runners, as much as the waterfowl, at Wapato Park were the first to help me fall in love with Tacoma. We may not know each other well, but we look forward to saying hello and the occasional chat. I’ll be speaking with them about this and encouraging them to write. Thank you all.
K Kevin Parker March 17, 2011
Does anyone have more info on the digital billboards themselves? The mayor said they are not as bright as the billboards on I-5, but how bright (in a measurable number) will they be?
E Evan Swanigan March 17, 2011
From the link Daniel just posted, it says, “The colors are vibrant, the images are crystal-clear and every few seconds a new design is displayed, keeping your audience engaged.” Then later indicates: High Traffic Locations.
So drivers in heavy traffic will be focused on billboards instead of their driving…
H Heidi March 18, 2011
Here’s a good comment from a letter submitted to the Planning Commission from Laura Vaughn:
“Don’t let anyone tell you billboards can’t be banned. The following states prohibit all billboards:
Vermont – Removed all billboards in 1970s
Hawaii – Removed all billboards in 1920s
Maine – Removed all billboards in 1970s and early 80s
Alaska – State referendum passed in 1998 prohibits billboards”
“Often, billboard industry representatives try to convince local governments that if they ban billboards, they will be violating the First Amendment right to free speech. This is not true. In almost all states, localities may ban billboards outright, or may restrict the size and types of billboards that are allowed. The only thing they cannot restrict is what they say. ‘It’s only when you get into banning content that you get into trouble,’ said Eric Kelly, an attorney and professor of urban planning at Ball State University, who often helps local cities and towns draft or revise their sign ordinances.
S Sean Peterson March 18, 2011
I’ve enjoyed reading about this subject. I would argue that the overall beauty of a city would be enhanced with the removal of those billboards. However I do like the lottery billboard that reminds us to buy a lottery ticket as the pot goes up…but really we don’t need them. I also feel we should do away with all telephone poles and electrical wire hanging around and put that mess underground…but that’s another issue for another day.
Cheers.
R RR Anderson March 18, 2011
the billboard looming over It’s Greek To Me is an epic disaster waiting to happen.
H Heidi March 18, 2011
Two questions:
1) Could someone post a list of locations or a link to a map where these billboards are being proposed?
2) Did anyone inquire about Clear Channel putting (or language prohibiting) cell phone antennas on the billboards?
Thanks.
M Mirror Dog March 19, 2011
Why not change the agreement for the same number of digital signs but to instead be all placed around the mall, between 38th and 48th… that area is designated for retail blight and has a high concentration of traffic. Why target neighborhood intersections when you could get the same exposure elsewhere, where people would actually be more receptive to the signs instead of resent and despise them?
J Judy Kendall March 20, 2011
I’ve seen the question raised a few times about the billboards being dual cell phone towers… any knowledge of this, input or response? Anyone?
P Praetorian March 25, 2011
@ Kevin Parker: look at the draft ordinance for the light levels; the Tacoma Planning Commission is endorsing both luminance and illumination level light limits to reduce the brillance and light throw from these billboards. The ones in Milton along I5 on tribal land are not light limited.
As for the cell phone antennas question, I would venture to assume the city would allow a co-location of cell phone tower on them. Look into the city code on co-locations for cell phone antennas. Priority is usually given to mounting them on an existing structure rather than roof mounted or as a freestanding tower (which is the worst in terms of visual blight)
R RR Anderson March 25, 2011
Steven M Garrett calculated the amount of energy needed to power the proposed 38 new electronic billboards and it adds up to the energy needed to power 316 average homes.
Get Illuminated!