Wednesday, March 25, 2009
INC takes its stand on billboard issue
Thanks to Dependable Erection's Barry Ragin for filing this dispatch for the Indy on last night's INC vote on the billboard issue:
Last night's Inter-Neighborhood Council vote on two competing resolutions
regarding billboards in Durham was something of an anti-climax. The
first resolution urges city and county planners to make no changes to
the current Unified Development Ordinance, under which all billboards
are non-conforming uses which can only be maintained, not upgraded. A
number of delegates spoke in support of this resolution, but it was Tom
Miller of Watts Hospital-Hillandale who made the point that any change
to the ordinance has the effect of making billboards legal and
conforming uses under code, thereby making them permanent parts of the
landscape. As non-conforming uses, billboards can not be replaced, for
example, if they are destroyed by an act of God, or if they are taken by
a highway widening project. Miller pointed out that since Durham banned
billboards in 1984, the billboard population has dropped from a little
over 200, to a little less than 100, and that another dozen or so
billboards are scheduled to come down over the next few years.
This resolution passed overwhelmingly, with one negative vote, and
several abstentions.
The competing resolution, which has been presented as the "digital
billboard" proposal, was defeated by a similar margin garnering two
positive votes. Arguments in favor of digital billboards rested mainly
on their ability to inform travelers of destinations and events in
downtown Durham, and their use to disseminate Amber and Silver Alert
information. It was pointed out that both city and county attorneys have
expressed the opinion that requiring digital billboards to display any
form of PSA as a matter of statute would be unconstitutional.
The most interesting vote, from my perspective, came from the Rockwood
Neighborhood. As the Indy noted in its Triangulator blog, Patrick Byker,
an attorney for K&L Gates, which counts Fairway Outdoor Advertising
among its clients, basically appointed himself as Rockwood's delegate to
the INC last month by paying the $25 annual dues. Rockwood was one of
the neighborhoods abstaining from the vote. It would be interesting to
see the discussion that may have taken place on Rockwood's email list
about what position their neighborhood would take during tonight's vote.
Comments (3)
Showing 1-3 of 3
like
dislike
Hooray for the INC and for Durham! But Attorneys Sanders and Byker still got to bill for their hours, I'll bet, so everyone wins.
In a victory for common sense, and a stinging defeat for the billboard industry, the InterNeighborhood Council voted Tuesday night to support Durham's current ban on billboards. No doubt, billboard industry lobbyists will try to spin their defeat another way. But the fact remains that the billboard industry could only find two neighborhood reps in all of Durham to support their position. Two. (And, neither lives next to highways where industry wants to stick electronic billboards that blink more than 10,000 ads/day.) Many, many thanks to all those who took the time to understand the issue and vote against the billboard industry's attempt to overturn Durham's ban. Great coverage, Indy, especially about the billboard industry trying to manipulate the vote. warmest regards, John Schelp Old West Durham
Latest in Triangulator
-
Womble bill would compensate eugenics victims
Bill would establish $10 million fund to help compensate eugenics victims.
- May 16, 2012
-
State elections board clears Durham Partnership for Progress
Durham Partnership for Progress didn't coordinate with candidates, says state board
- May 7, 2012
-
Woodard: Election paperwork was sent, but not received
Mike Woodard says he learned Friday that the stack of forms he says he sent Feb. 22, within the required 10-day period, had not been received. "I'm going to take care of that today," he said.
- May 1, 2012
- More »
More by Author
-
D.R. Horton responds to mineral rights inquiry
- Apr 20, 2012
-
N.C. Attorney General's office to D.R. Horton: More info, please
Questions remain about when developer told homebuyers about mineral rights
- Apr 13, 2012
- More »
