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.