Planning Commissioners Journal

Interview with Mary Tracy of Scenic America about Billboards

Note from PCJ Editor Wayne Senville: To round out our coverage of the impacts of billboards, we thought it important to also hear from Scenic America, an organization that focuses -- as their President notes below -- on “preserving and enhancing the visual character of our nation’s roadways, communities, and countryside.” 

Again, I encourage you to weigh in with your own views about billboards on our Linkedin group page (you need to be registered on Linkedin to access this). There have already been a wide range of interesting comments posted there. 

Our previous postings related to billboards include:

• Interview with Ed McMahon about his article, "Billboards: The Case for Control"
• Article: "Billboards: The Case for Control" (available to download)
• Response from Outdoor Advertising Association of America to McMahon article
• "So You're From Vermont" -- perspectives of PCJ Editor Wayne Senville

---

Note: the photos included below were provided by Scenic America

Wayne Senville: Mary, you’re President of an organization called Scenic America. Can you tell us a little about what Scenic America does?

Mary Tracy: Two years ago, I became the president of Scenic America, an organization that I have been deeply committed to for the past twenty years. It is the only national nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving and enhancing the visual character of our nation’s roadways, communities, and countryside. We accomplish this mission through outreach and advocacy efforts, and with the help of over twenty state and local affiliates.

We are the sole national counterweight to the multi-billion dollar outdoor advertising industry, yet we are mostly a network of volunteer organizations whose financial resources are dwarfed by the industry’s. We focus our efforts where we can be most effective: helping citizens make their voices heard. When the public is allowed to speak, they voice a preference for beauty over blight.

Wayne Senville: I want to ask you a couple of questions about billboards. First of all, aren’t most billboards used by local businesses, and aren't billboards also important in promoting tourism?

Mary Tracy: According to a fact sheet prepared by the Outdoor Advertising Association of America, the three biggest users of billboards are McDonald’s, Verizon, and AT&T. All of the top 20 billboard users are large corporations, such as Coca-Cola, Anheuser-Busch, and US Cellular, who use billboards simply as a form of “brand reinforcement” among the traveling public. We’ve spoken with many business owners who say they’d prefer not to use billboards at all; they only use them because their competition does. They’ve told us they’d prefer a level playing field where no one is using billboards.

Additionally, the inference that billboards are essential tools for tourism agencies is just plain wrong. The four states that ban billboards all have economies highly dependent on tourism. In fact, tourism spending in Vermont rose 50 percent in the two years after the state removed its last billboard. [Source: "Vermont Travel Estimates Out-of-State Visitors." 1982. Vermont Division of Research and Statistics]. Celebrating the 30th anniversary of Maine’s billboard ban, Dana Connors, president of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, said “It's become part of our quality of place.”

Wayne Senville: If the removal of billboards in these four states has proven to be a success, why haven’t more states joined in banning billboards?

Mary Tracy: Billboard companies and their various trade associations spend millions of dollars annually aggressively lobbying all levels of government, but in particular the industry works to influence regulation at the state level. Part of the reason for this is they receive the least amount of public scrutiny at this level; when called before city councils or local planning commissions to speak on sign ordinances, they are met with a public who is passionately anti-blight and eager to protect their neighborhoods.

Last year the industry was unsuccessful in its attempts to overturn Durham, North Carolina’s longstanding billboard ban and erect digital billboards. Since they lost that fight, they are now working on legislation that will remove local control.

In fact, there is currently a concerted effort by the billboard industry to eliminate local control over sign regulation. Bills have been introduced in four states -- Missouri, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas -- that would take control of billboards away from localities and give it to the state. 

The federal government has also made it difficult for states to remove billboards. Congress has prevented states from using amortization as a tool to remove the thousands of nonconforming billboards along interstate and federal-aid primary highways, instead requiring cash compensation, the funds for which simply no longer exist.

Wayne Senville: Assuming local hands are not tied by state legislation, are there things communities can do to reduce the number of billboards?

Mary Tracy: The first and most important step to reducing sign blight is to prohibit the construction of new billboards, like thousands of communities across the country have already done. This will ultimately result in fewer billboards as some are lost to attrition, some to Mother Nature and others to development. When Houston banned new billboards in 1980, there were some 10,000 signs in the city; today, there are fewer than 3,000.

"So You're From Vermont"

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

Yesterday we posted a response from the Outdoor Advertising Association of America to an article by Ed McMahon, Billboards: The Case for Control (see also my interview with McMahon). I hope you'll read these. I wanted to also offer some of my own perspectives as a resident and business owner in Vermont, a state where billboards have been prohibited since 1968.

It’s happened quite a few times. I tell folks I’m from Vermont, and before you know it, they say something like “We visited Vermont once. You don’t have any billboards up there … it was really nice to be able to drive and see the countryside without them in the way.”

Vermont (and three other states, Alaska, Hawaii, and Maine) have shown that it’s not hard to get along without billboards. In fact, it’s very, very easy to get used to not having them.

Vermont businesses have not suffered over the past 40+ years as a result of a lack of billboards. In fact, with the state’s scenic beauty enhanced, many have benefitted.

The state’s unobtrusive, but easy to spot, roadside signs clearly indicate where to turn to get to a store or businesses you’re looking for. If anything this makes it easier for people to find businesses.

How’s that? First, as a driver you’re not distracted by giant signs towering over fields and countryside. Instead, you can easily spot the distinctive, attractively designed, roadside information signs -- and enjoy the real scenery.

Second, our roadside information signs are a big plus for small businesses. No need to spend big bucks to rent space on a billboard -- or (more likely) be drowned out by billboards taken by big national chains like Holiday Inns, Bob Evans, or Jim Beam and Seagram’s (and their whiskeys).

It's rare to hear anyone say they couldn't find a Vermont business because there was not billboard announcing it. Indeed, as McMahon notes in his article, a former head of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce has said that far from hurting businesses, the removal of billboards “had the opposite effect.”

Controlling billboards is a matter of deciding you want to exercise your right to enjoy a scenic view, to feel more relaxed while driving (or biking, or walking), and to not be subject to a barrage of commercial displays you can’t escape.

What’s more, digital billboards are even more visually intrusive than traditional billboards, with mega-size flashing, changing, and sometimes even rotating images. What does the OAAA have to say about this? Basically, they duck the question, saying that “only a small portion of billboard inventory is digital” -- but failing to acknowledge that their number is rapidly growing.

We’re simply under no obligation to subject ourselves to constant visual assault. As McMahon accurately notes, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the regulation -- and prohibition -- of billboards. As the Court said (in Berman v. Parker) “it is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy.”

Planning commissioners have always worked hard to plan for safe, efficient, and beautiful cities and towns. Indeed, as planning historian Laurence C. Gerckens, FAICP, has noted, the origins of city planning in American centered on “realizing an inspiring good order in the public environment while protecting the positive qualities of both the natural environment and cultural heritage.” See Gerckens, "Community Aesthetics & Planning," PCJ #7.

So what does the case for billboards amount to? Remarkably, it seems (at least from the OAAA’s response) the most important function of billboards, especially the newer digital ones, is to display public service announcements (PSAs).

A New Planning Forum to “Free People’s Minds"

---

Note from PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

We're pleased that over the coming year we'll be exchanging monthly blog postings with our partner, Project for Public Spaces. Many of PPS' posts on the PlannersWeb will supplement content from their short articles in the Planning Commissioners Journal. This post ties in to their “11 Principles for Creating Great Community Places,” included in our Winter issue.

 

---

Building a Vision for Buffalo’s Waterfront 
by Staff from Project for Public Spaces

“If you can create a process that’s democratic and inclusive, the product will be one that will be lasting- and that all people will buy into …” -- Mark Goldman.

We’re inspired by the work of this highly-motivated group of people in Buffalo, New York, who insist on moving away from big, “look-at-me” designs and toward lower-cost, creative interventions that will bring immediate improvements to their under-used waterfront.

Mark Goldman, one of Buffalo’s biggest “zealous nuts”, along with a creative team of unlikely partners, hosted a 2-day Forum in November 2010 called “Aspirations and Inspirations” to kick-off a visioning process to re-invent Buffalo’s former industrial waterfront as a multi-use public destination sustained by local artists and businesses.

“This is not your typical policy meeting. This is about inspiration”

Events like these signal a shift away from the traditional master planning process and towards a new, place-based agenda to transform cities. Instead of a standard design charrette, Buffalo kicked things off with a festival meant to send a message “to the decision makers that there are other ways to think about planning our waterfront.”

Cultural Asset Mapping

Lessons learned from a project to map out four towns' cultural resources. by Rob Voigt; from PCJ #81 (Winter 2011); 2 pages Read excerpts below; to order & download the full article use Shopping Cart button at bottom of this post.

In recent years, urban planning, arts and culture, economic development, and city administration have found common ground in a raised awareness of the importance of culture to a community's livability and prosperity. In fact, cultural vitality is increasingly referred to as one of the four pillars of sustainability, along with social equity, economic health, and environmental responsibility. Numerous cities across North America have begun to leverage cultural assets for attracting business, investment, and people. Smaller municipalities often have serious challenges in competing with their larger urban cousins to achieve these kinds of successes. Cultural asset mapping (CAM) is used to understand and interpret the complex interrelationships of cultural elements for use in strategic planning and economic development and is scaleable for use in smaller municipalities. Cultural asset mapping has been defined as: "a process of collecting, recording, analyzing, and synthesizing information in order to describe the cultural resources, networks, links, and patterns of usage of a given community or group." Maps are most often understood as the indispensable tools that help us navigate our physical world. Cultural asset maps, by representing the spatial relationships between such things as artists, markets, fairgrounds, heritage sites, and buildings, help tell us about who we are, based on our unique identity, history, and cherished stories -- in other words, our culture. There are two categories for these maps: (1) resource maps, identifying and recording tangible cultural resources, such as buildings or locations; and, (2) community identity maps, identifying intangible cultural resources, such as the stories and traditions that define community identity. Cultural resource information that is spatially-based allows it to be integrated into municipal projects and land use planning in a number of ways: Awareness and marketing -- promoting culture with residents and tourists. Economic development -- targeting or facilitating entrepreneurial investment in creative cultural industries. Planning and policy -- informing municipal decision-making relating to land use, social planning, heritage planning, urban design, and place making. Networks and collaboration -- facilitating partnerships with cultural groups and identifying opportunities to maximize assets. From an Idea to a Strategy The cultural asset management project that I'll be describing has brought together four communities in a broad-ranging undertaking linking planning, culture, and economic development. ... the article continues with a look at the project Voigt worked on, involving four neighboring Ontario towns, and some lessons learned.

order & download full article $3.25 (single copy license)
order & download full article $10.00 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of article)

Interview with Ed McMahon about his article "Billboards: The Case for Control"

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

Our Winter issue includes an article by Ed McMahon, “Billboards: The Case for Control.” McMahon is a nationally renowned authority and speaker on sustainable development, land conservation, and urban design. He’s a Senior Resident Fellow at the Urban Land Institute.

In his Planning Commissioners Journal article, McMahon argues that billboards are not only unsightly, but damage community character. He also responds to arguments commonly heard in favor of allowing billboards.

I asked Ed McMahon to take a few minutes to discuss some of the points he makes in his PCJ article:

Wayne Senville: Billboards have been a long-standing form of advertising. In fact, many older readers may have fond memories of Burma Shave signs along our roadways. Why have billboards become such a problem today that you're advocating that communities shut the door on all billboards?

Ed McMahon: In a relatively short time, outdoor advertising has gone from Burma Shave to Blade Runner; from small and folksy to huge and intrusive. We have now entered the era of digital billboards -- huge outdoor TV screens wasting energy while degrading the landscape and distracting drivers.

Today commercialism -- particularly in the form of outdoor advertising -- pervades our world to an extent unimaginable, even several decades ago.

Wayne Senville: One of the arguments in favor of having billboards is that they provide motorists with useful information. Isn't that often true?

Ed McMahon: No one needs billboards. The vast majority of billboards advertise products or services that have nothing to do with motorist information: beer, cell phones, strip clubs, you name it.

What’s more there are alternatives to billboards that provide motorist information at far less cost without degrading our landscape. For example, we have all seen  highway “logo signs” that advertise roadside services such as gas stations, restaurants, hotels, and tourist attractions. What’s more, information on roadside services is now readily available on smart phones, Blackberries, and vehicle information systems, like Onstar.

Wayne Senville: Is it really appropriate for government to be telling businesses how they can or cannot advertise their products? Why should advertising on billboards be treated any differently than advertising on TV, in magazines, or on web pages? Isn't this just a question of government imposing its aesthetic tastes?

Ed McMahon: Billboards are the only form of advertising you cannot turn off or ignore.  There is a vast difference between seeing an ad -- even the same ad -- in a magazine, newspaper, on television, or on the internet. The difference is freedom of choice. When you buy a magazine or turn on the television, you exercise freedom of choice. You can easily turn the page or change the channel if you don’t want to see an ad. 

In contrast, you have no power to turn off or throw away a billboard. Billboards force advertising on individuals and communities whether they want it or not. What’s more, billboards are on enormous structures that litter the landscape, cover entire buildings, block access to scenic vistas, and create a strident, hectic atmosphere in our cities and countryside.

Wayne Senville: Isn't it an unlawful taking of property rights for local governments to prohibit billboards? What about billboard that are already up?

Ed McMahon: Courts have long held that billboards do not derive their value from the private land they stand on, but from the public roads they stand next to. Courts call this the “parasite principle” -- because billboards feed like a parasite off roads they pay almost nothing to build, use, or maintain.

Carefully drafted billboard ordinances have met legal scrutiny for more than 50 years. Billboard regulation is not a legal problem, but a political problem. Curbing billboards is not easy, but it can and is being done.

Wayne Senville: In your article you mention several states, such as Vermont and Hawaii, that ban billboards. Doesn't this hurt local businesses who are trying to attract customers?

Ed McMahon: Vermont, Maine, Alaska, and Hawaii all ban billboards, so do thousands of cities, towns and counties. These communities have found that beauty and placemaking are good for business; ugliness and excessive commercialism are not. 

The former head of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce summed up this point of view, when he said “One of our greatest resources is our scenic beauty. Although there was some initial sensitivity that removing billboards might hurt tourism, it has had the opposite effect. Tourism is up for all  businesses, large and small.”

Wayne Senville: Do you find that the newer digital billboards represent a major change in the nature of outdoor advertising? If so, is it for the better or for the worse?

Ed McMahon: In addition to being intrusive and a major expansion of commercialism, digital billboards are huge energy hogs. Digital billboards make a mockery of efforts to go green. A chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council recently found that one digital billboard use 49 times the energy of a conventional billboard. Even the spokesman for a major outdoor advertising company acknowledged that a digital billboard use roughly five times as much energy as a single family house.

A community littered with ugly energy guzzling digital signs is the antithesis of a sustainable community.

---

We welcome you to weigh in. Join the discussion on the Planning Commissioners Journal Linkedin group page (you need to be a Linkedin user to view our group page; if you're not using Linkedin, I encourage you to try it out).

 

Recognizing Our Assets

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

It’s an all too common failing, we tend to lose sight of the natural and man-made assets our communities offer: our history, our landmarks, our natural features, the special character of our downtowns and main streets.

Sometimes we recognize them too late, as Joni Mitchell reminds us in her well-known lyrics: “Don’t it always seem to go, that you don't know what you’ve got till it’s gone. They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.”

In the Winter issue of the Planning Commissioners Journal (due out January 27th), you’ll find several articles on this theme. Gwendolyn Hallsmith starts by reminding us of the economic benefits that can come from recognizing our natural and cultural assets. You'll then read Rob Voigt’s account of how four towns in Ontario have come together to map them out.

Another way of enhancing our assets can come from a combination of strengthening our urban cores, while conserving farmland and natural resources. Beth Humstone discusses one tool for accomplishing this: urban growth boundaries.

As I mentioned last month, the Winter issue also marks the debut of a new partnership we've entered into with a terrific non profit organization, the Project for Public Spaces (PPS). One of their principal interests is ensuring that community assets, in particular parks and open spaces, are well-used and maintained. In our Winter issue, PPS staff highlight their eleven principles for creating great community places.

The physical character and beauty of our cities, towns, and countryside is also a valuable asset. Ed McMahon, a senior fellow at the Urban Land Institute, argues that billboards undermine this, with negative economic impacts.

While some still claim that aesthetics is not within the purview of local government, the Supreme Court over a half-century ago said otherwise.[1] Moreover, as planning historian Laurence Gerckens has pointed out, the impetus for community planning in the U.S. at the turn of the 19th century centered on aesthetics: “realizing an inspiring good order in the public environment while protecting the positive qualities of both the natural environment and the cultural heritage.”[2]

Finally, let’s not forget that it’s engaged citizens who are any community’s most valuable asset -- including dedicated, informed planning board members. In our Winter issue, Carolyn Braun offers some great tips that should new planning commissioners be more effective in their new job.

Take a look at the full contents of our Winter issue -- and if you're not yet a subscriber, consider trying out the Planning Commissioners Journal for a year. 

[1] See Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), where the Court found that “it is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy … .”

[2] See Gerckens, “Community Aesthetics & Planning,” PCJ #7 (Nov/Dec. 1992).

 

Reporting from the World Canals Conference

Note from Planning Commissioners Journal Editor Wayne Senville:

I've been at the World Canals Conference in Rochester and Buffalo, New York, the past two days speaking with some fascinating people from around the world -- and learning about the many positive impacts that canals and inland waterways can bring to cities, towns, and regions.

I'll be posting a series of short reports here on the PlannersWeb later. But for now, you can get a quick glimpse of some of what I've been hearing from my Conference "tweets."

If you use Twitter you'll find additional tweets later today or tomorrow morning. Use the hashtag: #canconf to locate the tweets and, of course, feel free to chime in.

You can click on the graphic of the tweets below to view it at larger size in a pop up window.

 

Give My Regards to Broadway

One of the most remarkable sights in New York City these days is the transformation of Broadway in the Times Square district from a traffic-jammed artery to a car-free zone, where pedestrians reign. I touched on this briefly in my last post -- in how movable chairs are one key element in this changeover.

One of the advocates behind New York City's growing embrace of pedestrian and bicycle-oriented policies is Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan. Listen to her in the following two short video clips. In the first she talks about the changes to Broadway, and how they can serve as a model for New York's other boroughs. In the second video, she responds to questioners in Los Angeles about how to shape city transportation policies.

What Brand is Your City?

The idea -- and process -- of identifying, shaping, and promoting a particular image of a city or neighborhood has come to the fore in both the academic and popular press. It's called "branding." 

Branding, you may recall, was one of the top priorities Riverside, California, Mayor Ronald O. Loveridge identified in his State of the City address (see our News, Notes, & Quotes posting yesterday).

Certainly, many cities have long had distinctive identities, and have been known -- sometimes worldwide -- for certain characteristics. Think: Chicago, The Windy City; Paris, City of Light. But in today's competitive economic environment, with cities clawing for new businesses and for tourist dollars, identities that emerged gradually over time -- and may not have even been particularly appealing -- are now being instantly forged with the help of advertising (oops, communications) firms and media conscious chambers of commerce and elected officials. 

Here's a short excerpt, for example, from a recent article by Roger Yu in USA Today: Cities use destination branding to lure tourists (Feb. 11, 2010)

 "Tom Biedenharn's new business cards contain a recruiting message: 'Dayton Patented. Originals Wanted.' The cards are a reminder that the city was once a place of innovation and is again serious about recruiting such talent, says Biedenharn, Dayton's public affairs manager.

'Destination branding,' such as Dayton is undertaking, is back in vogue as cities and states pursue image makeovers designed to help them stand out in the weak global economy, attract visitors and even lure people who might relocate.

City slogans have been around for decades. But image branding is taking on more urgency as visitors and meeting planners become more discriminating in spending their shrinking budgets. ... 

For cities such as Dayton, Fresno and Cleveland, branding goes beyond tourism. It aims for a new identity that can stir local communities out of economic doldrums. ..." 

Dayton even cleverly highlights its branding campaign on the city's web site -- asking visitors to nominate a Dayton "original." Selected people (and places) are then highlighted.

There's also a new brand name for venerable Providence, Rhode Island:

As Philip Marcelo reports in the Providence Journal, ‘Creative Capital’ Providence found inspiration elsewhere (Mar. 30, 2009):

Goodbye, Renaissance City. So long, Beehive of Industry. The city has a new catchphrase, if you haven’t heard. ... Gradually, official stationery, business cards and the city’s Web site are being updated to reflect the new aesthetic, which has the clean, spare look of the start-up companies that the city is trying to entice. ... Mayor David N. Cicilline is rebranding the city as a center for creativity and innovation, the sort of place where the so-called knowledge-based industries would want to locate.

The city hired a pair of firms for a total of about $100,000 so far to come up with the concepts and designs. ... Seven companies, five of them out of state, replied. ... North Star was chosen with a low bid of about $75,000; it has done rebrands for Dayton, Ohio (“Originals Wanted”); Fairbanks, Alaska (“Light Energy Warmth”); Texarkana, Texas (“Western Spirit Served with Southern Hospitality”); and Gainesville, Fla. (“Every Path Starts with Passion”), to name a few. In New England, it came up with the Yarmouth, Mass., tagline “Cape Cod. Within Reach.”

Another city that has just recently branded itself is Regina, Saskatchewan. As reported by Bruce Johnstone in The Leader-Post (Feb. 9, 2010):

"Regina has a brand new brand in the form of a stylized letter R and a new slogan -- "infinite horizons" -- to convey the city's boundless opportunities and enviable quality of life. Mayor Pat Fiacco unveiled the city's new brand at his annual State of the City address ... Fiacco said the new brand, developed over 18 months for $320,000 by Winnipeg advertising firm McKim Cringan George, will help promote the city, both inside and outside the province. ...

Following his address, Fiacco said spending close to $400,000 in developing a brand should more than pay for itself in population growth and job creation. 'It's the cost of doing business. Cities who do nothing, get nothing.' In fact, Fiacco said every new citizen adds $40,000 in per capita GDP to the local economy. 'So if we get 10 new people, this pretty much pays for itself over the course of time.' "

The City has even posted a Q&A page on its web site explaining what the new brand means and how it can be used.

Some interesting observations on branding come from Otis White of Civic Strategies:

"Cities are in a lather these days about branding, and the list of cities actively searching for a 'brand' (the image that pops in your head when you think of a place) is long indeed: Chicago, Denver, Dallas and on and on. What these places are learning, though, is that it's infinitely harder to create a credible brand for a city than for, say, household detergent. ... For one thing, cities aren't discrete products. You can't reformulate them, relaunch them or shut them down if they're underperforming. Also, 'place marketing' almost always involves a lot of interests, some of which do not see eye to eye. 

So is all this branding stuff hopeless? No, experts say, but cities need to proceed realistically. ...  First, they shouldn't aim to be too specific with their images; the goal should be to create an "umbrella brand" that nearly everyone can live with. ... Second, branding efforts should proceed with a lot of public outreach. 'To deliver,' one expert said, 'everyone must believe in the brand.' " 

Dodge City Places Its Bet

Perhaps you're planning on doing some gambling this New Years' weekend ... maybe even at the new casino in Dodge City, Kansas. I visited Dodge City in June 2007, just a few days before city residents voted to proceed with casino gambling -- authorized earlier that year by the Kansas legislature.

Many in Dodge City view casinos as an important economic development strategy. This short video is the case the winning bidder (Butler National) made for the right to build a casino in Dodge. Take a look, also, at my 2007 post on Dodge City which looks at both sides of the argument on casinos.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about the impacts of casinos. While they can bring new revenues into communities, they also come with a downside too often given short shrift -- the addictive nature of gambling and its potential devastating impact on families. 

For Dodge City, the question also is how well the casinos will fit with the historic "Wild West" image/brand the City is trying to convey and strengthen. That remains to be seen.

Your Tour Guide in Melbourne

OK, after last Friday's video short, let's get serious about how to promote cities like Melbourne using video. But there's no need to get too serious. You can be effective with a light touch, as this promotional video shows:

Here's another effective, but off-beat, promo on Melbourne; this one involves a giant ball of yarn.