Digital Billboards

[bugo]

Or what if his next door neighbor had a sign in his yard that said "ATHEIST?"  I'm sure Mr. Faux Christian would have a problem with that.

If that neighbor likes excessively hot weather, then that's his choice. 

Doesn't your Black Book say "judge not lest ye be judged yourself?"  And you still haven't provided evidence of your god.

of course he has.  it's printed black on one side, green on the other.

+1

[cpzilliacus]

I'm just wondering if digital billboards have made it to your area and what you may think of them.

Not so much in my home state of Maryland (which still outlaws most billboards along its Interstate and non-Interstate freeway network).

But I have driven a fair amount in Southern California, where they are quite common - and extremely annoying, especially at night.

[cpzilliacus]

Ever try driving by them? They're amazingly distracting.

Yeah, there are several in Cincinnati. I've seen them in a few other places.

Someone else said all billboards should be banned. I don't believe in unnecessarily restricting the rights of property owners to use their land as they see fit. If someone owns a piece of property adjacent to a highway -- even an interstate, and that means you, Lady Bird Johnson -- they ought to be able to lease out advertising space to make a few extra bucks.

You have a good point there - however - in that case the only reason the billboard is there is because of the presence of the highway - and the owner of the billboard should be required to pay a tax to the state DOT (perhaps on a sliding-scale, dependent on the published annual average daily traffic volume in the link where the sign is installed).

I live at a reasonably busy intersection in my county, with road frontage on both highways, and I routinely let political candidates with whom I'm friends put up signs. Why shouldn't I charge them and let any candidate who wants to pay me put up a sign?

On roads that are lower in functional class than freeway and expressway, I think that should be up to the relevant local government - and the owner of the land.

[formulanone]

The digital billboards are of no problem to me during the day, but at night, the intensity ought to be decreased by about two-thirds at night. Otherwise, it's an annoying distraction that ought to be dealt with by now...there's a reason most people don't drive with their interior dome light on at night, so why the double standard?

[kphoger]

I hate almost all billboards.  I find digital billboards harder to ignore.  They should play Simpsons reruns on them.

[J N Winkler]

I sometimes wonder what would happen if a Robin Hood figure or group decided to stage a covert demolition campaign against billboard installations, observing a strict no-casualties rule.  There would be aggressive police pursuit, of course, but if the campaign were carefully designed for continuity and the no-casualties rule were strenuously publicized, I suspect society would acquiesce in the billboard owners going bankrupt.

[hbelkins]

I sometimes wonder what would happen if a Robin Hood figure or group decided to stage a covert demolition campaign against billboard installations, observing a strict no-casualties rule.  There would be aggressive police pursuit, of course, but if the campaign were carefully designed for continuity and the no-casualties rule were strenuously publicized, I suspect society would acquiesce in the billboard owners going bankrupt.

I for one would hope for prosecution to the fullest for these vandals. It would be no different than if someone came and keyed your car or tore up your flower beds or painted graffiti on the wall of your home. Private property is private property, no matter where it is located.

Suggest something like that to, say, an abortion clinic and the left would be going ballistic.

The attitudes being demonstrated here against the free-market economy and private property rights bother me. Do we live in America or do we live in some totalitarian communist society?

[NE2]

Do we live in America or do we live in some totalitarian capitalist society?

[J N Winkler]

I for one would hope for prosecution to the fullest for these vandals.

I for one would hope that your position would be in the minority.

It would be no different than if someone came and keyed your car or tore up your flower beds or painted graffiti on the wall of your home. Private property is private property, no matter where it is located.

It is enormously different.  Your car, home, flower beds, etc. are accoutrements of private life:  they are personal to you and are not offered for public display--all that society asks of you in relation to them is that they not impose negative externalities in an unfair or unreasonable way.  In contrast, billboards are appliances for making private profit out of public annoyance.  Many billboard companies have interests in multiple cities and senior management at those companies may not have personally seen even a small fraction of the billboards in which their companies have a financial interest.  (Do you think Jacques Decaux himself has personally visited every bus shelter in which he has an advertising display?)

Look at it from another angle.  How does blowing up a billboard (with the firm proviso that there be no casualties) differ in a substantive way from a city making good on its failure to enforce an anti-billboard ordinance?

Suggest something like that to, say, an abortion clinic and the left would be going ballistic.

Clinic bombings are objected to for different reasons.  First, they are usually executed in tandem with attempts to assassinate abortion doctors, and second, they are frequently carried out without regard to possible loss of life.

The attitudes being demonstrated here against the free-market economy and private property rights bother me. Do we live in America or do we live in some totalitarian communist society?

I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine.  Do you agree not to be bothered by my views if I agree not to be bothered by yours?  Capitalism at its finest.

[hbelkins]

Look at it from another angle.  How does blowing up a billboard (with the firm proviso that there be no casualties) differ in a substantive way from a city making good on its failure to enforce an anti-billboard ordinance?

An ordinance would ostensibly be voted on by the elected representatives of the people. It's doubtful that a legitimate business interest would erect a billboard in a place where it was illegal to do so.

Destroying someone else's private property, erected legally and in conformity with existing laws, statutes, regulations or ordinances is wrong on many levels, legally and morally. It is destruction of another's property. It is trespassing. It amounts to theft.

Are you really advocating lawlessness just because you don't like the way something looks?

[J N Winkler]

An ordinance would ostensibly be voted on by the elected representatives of the people. It's doubtful that a legitimate business interest would erect a billboard in a place where it was illegal to do so.

It has happened in Wichita.  We have a number of illegally erected billboards which the city has declined to remove.  The Wichita Eagle investigated several years ago and discovered that, notwithstanding the city's claims that allowing new billboards (and declining to take enforcement action against illegal billboards) showed the city had a pro-business climate and thus encouraged job creation, most of the owners of the illegal billboards were not even based in Wichita.

Destroying someone else's private property, erected legally and in conformity with existing laws, statutes, regulations or ordinances is wrong on many levels, legally and morally. It is destruction of another's property. It is trespassing. It amounts to theft.

As we found in Wichita, "erected legally" is not even something that can be taken for granted.  Also, are you familiar with the aphorism "property is theft"?  In order for the institution of private property to be treated as sacred, there is an obligation not to use it as an instrument for unreasonably inflicting negative externalities on the community as a whole.

Are you really advocating lawlessness just because you don't like the way something looks?

If I advocated lawlessness, I would open myself to criminal prosecution or civil litigation for either incitement or criminally facilitative speech.  Therefore I only put forward the idea that the excesses of the billboard owners are such that a Robin Hood group that chooses to take them on, and does so in the absolute and credible determination not to cause injury or loss of life, buys popular acquiescence in its actions.

[Scott5114]

It does not follow that because someone has the right to do something it means they should. Similarly it does not follow that because someone can make money by doing something it means they should.

[BigMattFromTexas]

Here in Angelo, as said we have a sign height ordinance, which also prohibits billboards from being HUGE, but recently (last 5 years) this company has come in, Southwest Outdoor Advertising.. They've popped up billboards like rabbits.. 5 within 2500 FEET. They are really pushing the height limit too.. I didn't mind new billboards but this one is just tacky...
https://maps.google.com/?ll=31.437307,-100.494347&spn=0.000606,0.00065&hnear=Texas&t=h&deg=270&z=21
The other company, Lamar, only has two signs that are really big (both can be seen from the US 67 over US 87/277.
Southwest also has several digital billboards, again, too bright at night, day time, I don't really care..
BigMatt

[empirestate]

I for one would hope for prosecution to the fullest for these vandals. It would be no different than if someone came and keyed your car or tore up your flower beds or painted graffiti on the wall of your home. Private property is private property, no matter where it is located.

That's the opinion that floods to my mind as well, every time I hear that Carrie Underwood song about smashing up her ex's truck. No morally better than the pimps 'n hos vein of hip-hop music, tsk tsk!

[jeffandnicole]

The ones I'm familiar with in PA & NJ (around the Philly area) all appear to be pretty tame at night...dimmed to the point where you can still see them, but it's not lighting up the nighttime sky to the point where it's blinding.