| « PSP comment box | Home | Thursday's too busy? Try Tuesday instead! » |
Latest Entries
Photos ~ Family and Friend Weekend in the 'Couve
Photos ~ First Night 2009 (mostly Hi Jack, really)
Photos ~ Boxing Day Meaties at the Stowe's
Photos ~ Christmas Day Sea Wall Walk
Mon. June 25, 2007, 06:53am PDT
Coming soon: Tacoma vs. Clear Channel?
Jason Hagey writes in this morning's News Tribune of things heating up a bit over local billboards. Owner of all 193 Tacoma billboards Clear Channel has already fired a few warning shots at the City. Seems this industry has been able to swat down strict billboard ordinances like the one Tacoma passed ten years ago. Their argument comes from the angle of compensation for removal of the structures and is probably a sound one. That and the idea that they could keep such an issue in the courts for who-knows-how-long and cost the City tons in legal fees.
From the article:
Chris Artman, president of Clear Channel Outdoor Northwest, told The News Tribune on Thursday that his company wants to meet with Tacoma officials to work out a solution. "This isn’t something that needs to end up in litigation," Artman said.
The same day, the city received a letter from a Clear Channel attorney stating that the city's ordinance was unconstitutional and unenforceable. Even if it was enforceable, the company would be owed $50 million or $60 million to remove the signs, wrote Seattle attorney Paul Taylor.
"Clear Channel's billboards in Tacoma are worth millions of dollars," Taylor said. "Absent an agreed resolution, Clear Channel has no choice but to vigorously protect its interest. There will be protracted, expensive multi-year litigation."
I would imagine compensation of some kind would be necessary in most cases. But, for whatever the City can't get taken down for free, pay 'em. Work it out so over the next 10 years we rid ourselves of these ads. Do it one by one and, sooner than we know it, they'll be gone. Nevertheless, it'll be interesting in the local city council election to keep a close eye on whether any candidates do or do not want to uphold the billboard ordinance and, if not, whether they receive any donation at all from Clear Channel.
Comments (13) | To Top
6/25/2007 @ 11:51am
I am curious what local businesses that use the billboards think? We even have some government agencies (Click and PD Zoo) using them.
If the citizens want them removed maybe picket the companies that are breaking the cities laws? I am sure after a day of protesters at the biz they would think again about using billboards in the city. Others would follow because they wouldn't want the protester.
Next step: Get rid of power poles! Those are worse then the billboards.
by Jake
6/25/2007 @ 11:54am
Here is a great quote from Scenic America:
"Visual pollution. Sky Trash. Litter on a stick. The junk mail of the American highway.
Nothing destroys the distinctive character of our communities and the natural beauty of our countryside more rapidly than uncontrolled signs and billboards, which is why Scenic America encourages communities to adopt ordinances to stop the construction of new billboards."
Need one say more?
The Tacoma City Council needs to follow up on this issue stronger. Congratulations to Councilmembers Stenger for his comments, Evans for his work on the issue before being on council (I believe he worked on it as a member of the North End Neighborhood Council). Also, Baarsma apparently helped pass the ordinance as a councilmember.
With the 10 year depreciation time ending for the billboards, this may be our only time to act to enforce the ordinance.
The TNT article ends with
"The Washington D.C.-based nonprofit organization opposes billboards and other so-called visual pollution. But Fry said Tacoma shouldn’t back down. Unless the city’s ordinance was badly written, the city will eventually prevail, he predicted."
Ok. Then lets work to prevail.
-Erik B.
P.S. Perhaps the Tacoma Photo Gang can take pictures of some of the most blightfull billboards around town and how they effect the neighborhoods.
by Scenic America - Clean Up Blighting Billboards
6/25/2007 @ 1:07pm
billboards suck. Though they make excellent targets for underground artists like ronald english and the YesMen.
Come on you kids, start defacing these monsters!
by RR Anderson
6/25/2007 @ 3:49pm
Compensate Clearchannel for their boards if you want, but it doesn't cost any $50 million to remove 190-some billboards. Hell, citizens groups against billboards will take them out, one by one, every Saturday for free for four years if you sic 'em on them. An actual organized effort by the City to remove one every weekday for a year would have them down by Aug 1 08, and would cost only about $2-$5 mil.
This is not a difficult issue to resolve except for CC's legalistics.
by TheDamnMushroom
6/25/2007 @ 4:23pm
"An actual organized effort by the City to remove one every weekday for a year would have them down by Aug 1 08, and would cost only about $2-$5 mil."
This primarily a political issue, not a legal one. The city gave the owners 10 year period of depreciation to recover their "investment" from having monstrous billboards in neighborhood business districts. Take a look at 6th Avenue, Hilltop and Proctor.
I remember my initial reaction when I move to Tacoma amazed that the city would allow such blightful in the neighbor areas. They are typically above empty lots or one story buildings that are falling apart.
What it says is this is a place we don't care about so we might as well fill it up with visual garabage.
"But, for whatever the City can't get taken down for free, pay 'em. "
I agree.
The billboards are there now because Tacoma failed to have them removed when other cities did and now we are left with visual garbage strewn accross Tacoma's landscape. As with cleaning up hazarous waste, the current council is going to have to act where earlier ones failed to which got us into this situation.
-Erik B.
by Scenic America - Clean Up Blighting Billboards
6/25/2007 @ 5:43pm
I wonder if the city would release their billboard info to the public(owners, location, etc) . Who is up for starting "Tacoma Citizens Against Billboards"?
by Jake
6/25/2007 @ 5:47pm
Jake: We know the owners (Clear Channel owns every billboard in Tacoma -- 193 of 'em) so we just need locations. If the City isn't willing to provide a comprehensive list of where they all are, there's always Google Maps.
by KevinFreitas
6/25/2007 @ 5:48pm
...By which I mean we could find them as a group then map them out. Though city data (including which violates the ordinance) would be sweeeeet.
by Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Flim
6/25/2007 @ 6:21pm
"I wonder if the city would release their billboard info to the public(owners, location, etc)"
Yes, I believe the city has a comprehensive list of them.
At the very minimum, the neighborhood billboards should be removed.
by Erik B.
6/25/2007 @ 6:33pm
Could make for some great block-parties, the neighborhood residents taking those suckers down. Take back our streets! And walls! :)
by TheDamnMushroom
6/25/2007 @ 10:24pm
Here's is the Federal Way Case if anyone is interested in reading it.
ELLINGTON, J. - The Scenic Vistas Act, RCW 47.42, requires a localmunicipality to pay compensation before it can require removal of
commercial signs near highways. The City of Federal Way therefore cannotorder Harry Horan and David Rhodes to remove their signs when
compensation has not been determined. We affirm.
FACTS
RCW 47.42, the Scenic Vistas Act, applies to signs adjacent to state highways, /1 and provides that "[j]ust compensation shall be paid upon the removal of any existing sign pursuant to the provisions of any resolution or ordinance of any county, city, or town." /2 In 1990, the City of Federal Way enacted uniform requirements for the appearance, size,and placement of all commercial signs and billboards in the city. The ordinance provided a five-year "amortization" period for non- conforming signs. The ordinance further provided that its requirements did not apply
if removal "would require the City to pay compensation under RCW Chapter
47.42." /3 In 1995, Federal Way extended the amortization period for anadditional five years, and provided that "[t]he City may elect not to
apply any provisions of this Section 22-335 if the removal of a sign wouldrequire the city to pay compensation under any federal, state or otherlaw, including RCW ch. 47.42." /4
Harry Horan and David Rhodes own commercial signs in Federal Way situatedadjacent to a state highway. In 1996, Horan and Rhodes received notices from Federal Way that their signs did not conform to the ordinance and must be removed by 2000. The notices made no mention of compensation.
In July of 2000, Federal Way issued notices of violation ordering Horan and Rhodes to bring their signs into compliance or remove them. /5
Horan and Rhodes challenged the orders on grounds that RCW 47.42 requires Federal Way to pay compensation for the signs. The hearing examiner upheld the removal orders, and Horan and Rhodes filed a LUPA petition.
The superior court reversed the hearing examiner, holding that Federal Way was required to pay compensation under RCW 47.42.
DISCUSSION
We must first decide whether, as the City argues, Horan and Rhodes' LUPA
challenge is untimely under Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan
County. /6 In that case, Chelan County enacted a site-specific rezone, allowing urban growth outside its interim urban growth area.
Nearly two years later, the County approved a plat application for
development in the rezone. The Wenatchee Sportsmen Association argued the
development project violated the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A. The
Supreme Court held that because the site-specific rezone was a project
permit under RCW 36.70B.020(4), it was a "land use decision" subject to a
LUPA challenge. /7 The challenge brought after approval of the
development plan was therefore really an untimely challenge to the rezone
itself, and was precluded by the LUPA statute of limitation. /8
Federal Way contends Horan and Rhodes' LUPA challenge to the removal
orders is similarly untimely. Under LUPA, an aggrieved party has 21 days
to file a petition challenging a land use decision. /9 Federal Way
contends this limitation period was triggered by (1) enactment of the
amended ordinance in 1995; (2) various communications from the City; (3)
notices sent in 1995 and 1996 informing Horan and Rhodes that "the
Amended Ordinance required them to remove their nonconforming signs by
the year 2000," /10 and/or (4) the extensive media coverage of the 1995
amortization period extension. We reject the City's arguments.
First, Federal Way enacted the amended ordinance on June 6, 1995,
before LUPA's July 23, 1995 effective date, so the LUPA 21-day limitation
period does not apply. /11 Second, LUPA's deadline is triggered only by
a "land use decision," /12 which is a "final determination by a local
jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to
make the determination." /13 Federal Way contends the final
determination is the enactment of its sign ordinance (or, at the latest,
the 1996 notices). /14 But Federal Way ignores the fact that the 1995
ordinance gave the City discretion regarding enforcement-in other words,
Federal Way could choose whether or not to enforce the ordinance if it
would owe compensation under the Scenic Vistas Act. The enactment of the
ordinance therefore was not a final determination.
As for the 1996 notices, they constituted at most a final determination
that Federal Way intended to enforce the ordinance, not that it would do
so without paying compensation required by the statute. The challenge here
is not to the ordinance nor to Federal Way's right to set size limits.
Respondents challenge only the City's attempt to avoid payment of the
compensation due under the statute, which did not occur until the removal
notice in 2000. Neither the 1996 notices nor the enactment of the
ordinance were land use decisions subject to LUPA review. The LUPA statute
of limitation does not preclude the Respondents' claims.
Federal Way's argument that the enactment of the ordinance triggered
the LUPA limitation period under Wenatchee Sportsmen also fails
because there is no conflict between the statute and the ordinance. The
ordinance allows Federal Way to order removal of non-complying signs
after a ten-year amortization period:
Amortization. All legal nonconforming signs shall be
discontinued and removed or made conforming within ten (10)
years from the effective date of this code, on or before
February 28, 2000, and all signs which are made nonconforming
by a subsequent amendment to this code shall be discontinued
and removed or made conforming within five (5) years after the
date of such amendment (collectively the "Amortization
Period"). Upon the expiration of the Amortization Period, the
sign shall be brought into conformance with this code, with a
permit obtained, or be removed. /15
Nothing in the ordinance states that amortization is the sole method of
compensation for sign removal, /16 or that Federal Way can order sign
removal before paying compensation as required by RCW 47.42. Indeed, the
ordinance contemplates compliance with RCW 47.42 ("The City may elect not
to apply any provisions of this Section 22-335 if the removal of a sign
would require the city to pay compensation under . . . RCW ch. 47.42." /17).
Horan and Rhodes therefore had no reason to challenge the ordinance
when it was enacted. Nor did they have reason to challenge the 1996
notices, since nothing in those notices stated Federal Way intended to
withhold compensation. Only the July 2000 removal order revealed that
intent. Respondents' challenge to the removal order was timely.
Section 107 of the Scenic Vistas Act, RCW 47.42, governs compensation for
signs removed under local authority, including those removed pursuant to
city ordinances. /18 Compensation under this provision is to be paid in
the same manner as compensation for signs removed under state authority. /19
RCW 47.42.103 specifies this procedure:
(1) Compensation as required by RCW 47.42.102 shall be
paid to the person or persons entitled thereto for the removal
of such signs. If no agreement is reached on the amount of
compensation to be paid, the department may institute an action
by summons and complaint in the superior court for the county
in which the sign is located to obtain a determination of the
compensation to be paid. . . .
(2) If compensation is determined by judicial
proceedings, the sum so determined shall be paid into the
registry of the court to be disbursed upon removal of the sign
by its owner or by the owner of the real property on which the
sign is located. If the amount of compensation is agreed upon,
the department may pay the agreed sum into escrow to be
released upon the removal of the sign by its owner or the owner
of the real property on which the sign is located.
Here, there is no agreement about compensation, there has been no judicial
determination of compensation, and no payment into the court registry.
Consequently, there is no way to disburse funds upon removal as required
by the statute. /20 The removal order therefore cannot be enforced until
these procedures are followed. As the hearing examiner concluded, Horan
and Rhodes' signs violated the Federal Way sign ordinance. /21 But as the
superior court held, RCW 47.42 precludes removal before compensation is
determined. /22
The superior court's reversal and remand are affirmed.
by Erik B.
6/25/2007 @ 11:20pm
" An actual organized effort by the City to remove one every weekday for a year would have them down by Aug 1 08, and would cost only about $2-$5 mil."
While it may only cost $2-5m to physically remove the billboards, the economic impact of the removal is far more than that. I have no idea how much CC actually makes off the billboards, but the $50-60m price tag that CC wants as compensation is based (probably somewhat loosely) off actual revenue generated by the billboards. Sure, it may not be $50m in one year, but it very well may be an accurate number over 10-20 years.
by Gabe
6/27/2007 @ 2:23pm
The question is whether the 10 years depreciation period has sufficently compensated the billbaord owners. The city may owe nothing at this point. We will see.
by Erik B.