Seeking compromise, Senate panel delays vote on signs bill.
In Charlotte, the bill would reduce the space between digital billboards from 2,000 feet to 1,500 feet.
Critics say it could add thousands of distracting digital billboards to N.C. roadways, clear-cut trees and strip Charlotte and other local governments of the power to regulate their own landscapes.
Supporters call it a jobs bill – and are confident it will pass.
The “Selective Vegetation Removal” bill got a cool reception Wednesday in the Senate Transportation Committee, which postponed a vote for at least a week, in part to see if both sides can reach a compromise.
“It’s a fair bill, it’s a jobs bill, it makes sense,” the sponsor, Republican Sen. Harry Brown of Onslow County, told the panel.
The bill, whose co-sponsors include GOP Sen. Bob Rucho of Matthews, would allow outdoor advertisers to replace existing billboards with electronic ones and expand the area around them that could be cleared of trees from 250 feet to 400.
It would gut Durham’s existing billboard ban and nullify other local regulations – like Charlotte’s tree ordinance – that govern tree removal or sign location.
The bill would affect signs on interstate highways and federally assisted roads such as U.S. 64 and 70 in Wake County and U.S. 74 and N.C. 49 in Mecklenburg and other counties.
Supporters said by making billboards more prominent and easier to see, the measure would help restaurants, hotels and tourism in a state mired in a struggling economy.
But critics include the N.C. League of Municipalities, the Association of County Commissioners, the Sierra Club, the Metro Mayors Coalition and the N.C. Planning Association.
Replacing ‘static’ billboards
Ben Hitchings of the planning association said the bill could allow advertisers to replace 5,000 current billboards with digital signs that change their message every few seconds.
There are only 2,400 digital billboards around the country, according to the Outdoor Advertising Association of America.
The N.C. proposal would allow up to seven electronic billboards per mile.
In Charlotte, it would reduce from 2,000 to 1,500 feet the space between such billboards and from 1,000 feet to 100 feet the distance between digital signs and so-called “static” billboards.
It also would override a requirement for the city arborist to approve any tree-cutting in a public right-of-way that would make billboards more visible. Charlotte’s tree ordinance would no longer be enforced around billboards on the designated roadways
Critics have said the bill would make billboard companies more powerful than local governments. That prospect concerned some lawmakers.
“I don’t think we ought to take control away from local governments,” said Sen. Richard Stevens, R-Wake. “We do too much micro-managing up here.”
“Don’t mean to sound like a broken record,” added Democratic Sen. Malcolm Graham of Charlotte. “But the theme of today is local control.”
Among the critics of the bill: Edwin Peacock, a Republican who chairs the Charlotte City Council’s Environment Committee.
Sponsor calls criticism unfair
Tony Adams, a lobbyist for the N.C. Outdoor Advertising Association, sought to counter arguments about local control.
“We’re talking about roads funded by the federal government and fully controlled by the state,” he said.
He also said North Carolina has tougher billboard restrictions than other southern states and pointed to the proposed increase in permit fees for new billboards from $120 to $150. The additional money would be earmarked for tree planting and other beautification.
“There will be more trees in public rights-of-way than today,” Adams said.
Bob Hall of the watchdog group Democracy North Carolina has said executives with five major billboard companies gave N.C. politicians and political committees $150,000 in the past five years.
Some cities such as Denver have banned digital billboards, which they consider a driving distraction. Others, including St. Louis, have put a moratorium on them.
Brown, the main sponsor of the N.C. bill, said the criticism is unfair.
“We talk about technology helping every business, yet we want to limit this particular business by not letting them use technology,” he said. “What you’re telling them is we want your business to die a slow death and go away.”
By Jim Morrill
Posted: Thursday, Mar. 24, 2011
