Tucson Weekly: Billboard Games (January 22

Two Butt-Ugly Eyesores Down, Dozens To Go.
By Dave Devine
THE CITY OF Tucson bagged two signs recently in its 12-year struggle to reduce the number of billboards in town. But the time-consuming effort needed to get those illegal signs removed demonstrates how hard it's been for the city to implement an anti-billboard law enacted by voters more than a decade ago.
On January 10, Outdoor Systems took down two billboards located near Grant and Tanque Verde roads. The city had charged the signs were moved to other parcels of land than those originally approved, and that one of the boards was on property which wasn't even zoned for a billboard. Outdoor Systems didn't argue, agreeing in October 1996 to remove the two signs. But it took them over 14 months to get around to it.
One possible reason for the delay: The company's gross revenue from the two boards is estimated to have been almost $20,000 a year. These same calculations indicate that Whiteco, owner of 75 percent of the billboards in Tucson, has a gross profit of $7 to $8 million a year on nearly 400 signs in the city.
Currents So two billboards are down, but dozens still stand for the city government trying to implement the voting public's preference, as expressed in a 1985 ballot question. Earlier that year, the billboard industry had infuriated many people by lining the then-new Kino Parkway with huge signs. In response, and to meet the changing perception that an attractive community with fewer enormous signs might be a good thing, the City Council passed an ordinance prohibiting large new billboards except along the interstate. The law also required boards on vacant property to be removed when the land was developed.
Manny Molina of Whiteco proposed an alternative plan, which would have reduced the size of billboards and increased the spacing between them. The City Council rejected that idea, but did accept the suggestion to put the issue of restricting billboards on the ballot. At the same time, another question asked voters if tax money should be used to buy existing signs. After a bitter campaign, the voters overwhelmingly accepted the first proposal and rejected the second.
Whiteco subsequently filed legal action to halt the city from enforcing its ordinance. After eight years of litigation, the company lost. But then the state Legislature was asked for help. In 1994, lawmakers gutted the local requirement that a billboard be removed from a lot when property is developed.
That prompted the City Council to adopt a comprehensive strategy to reduce the number of billboards. Since 1985, those numbers have decreased somewhat, mostly as roads have been widened. There were about 600 billboards in Tucson then; today the total is just over 500.
The major thrust of the city's strategy was to take three separate legal enforcement actions. One was to file suits against billboard companies alleging numerous city code infractions, along with violations of the vacant-lot ordinance before the state legislation preempted it. The second step attacked cutouts and extensions, those embellishments above, below and in front of signs. The final action was directed at signs lit from below.
The results so far have been mixed. One court ruled the vacant-lot provision valid, while another did not. Despite that confusing signal, Outdoor Systems has been ordered to remove seven billboards and Whiteco will probably lose 11 others. The use of cutouts and extensions was also found to be illegal. All these decisions will be appealed.
Court documents reveal an industry which seemingly has a very hard time following fairly straightforward rules--like obtaining a city permit before moving a billboard, and placing the signs only in the proper land-use zones. For sign after sign in the Whiteco case, the court found, "The City did not issue a permit for the relocation of the billboard."
Frank Bangs, Whiteco's attorney for some of its cases with the city, declined to comment, saying it was his firm's policy not to discuss on-going litigation. He has written, however, that, "Whiteco has reason to believe that the notice of violation which is the subject of this present appeal and additional violations identified by the city (rumored to cover at least 100 signs) are part of an unprecedented enforcement effort mounted by the city in retaliation for the outdoor advertising industry's 1994 efforts to obtain state legislation...."
Martin Aronson, attorney for Outdoor Systems, said in his client's view, billboards are "a legal, relatively low-cost advertising medium used by many local small businesses." It is a factor, he said, which should be taken into consideration.
The City Attorney's Office will shortly be preparing more enforcement actions. Another 100 or so billboards may have violations which will require either removal or other corrective action. These signs include the giant one on Kino Parkway near I-10 that reportedly is located in a land-use zone which doesn't permit billboards.
Frank Kern, who works in the City Attorney's Office, says he expects these new enforcement efforts to begin within 60 to 90 days. City Attorney Tom Berning indicates they will "run the gamut" of possible violations and involve cases where signs have to be removed entirely as well as those where billboards would merely have to be brought into compliance with the law.
While this enforcement action is going on, the City Council may want to consider increasing the number of sign inspectors. Presently there are three, and as the council was told in 1995, "With the current level of staffing and workload, the (Development Services) Department has focused its efforts on processing of permit applications, handling public inquiries, and processing requests for variances for all types of signage." In other words, not much time is actually spent enforcing the law.
As with the notorious A-frame signs, where enforcement is an afterthought, billboards need to be closely watched for violations. Because just like the proverbial tree falling in an empty forest, does a billboard law without enforcement have any meaning?

Home | Currents | City Week | Music | Review | Books | Cinema | Back Page | Archives