Pedestrians passing beneath a casino-advertising billboard in the
5000 block of South 12th Avenue shouldn’t look up. If they do, they’ll
be gambling that there aren’t any pigeons about to poop on them from
above.

According to the city of Tucson, this billboard, which displays two
672-square-foot signs, was illegally built many years ago over the
public right of way. Not only that, but the billboard was also
allegedly installed without a permit, violates setback and spacing
regulations, and is too tall.

If a legal settlement now pending between the city and the
billboard’s current owner, Clear Channel Outdoor, is approved, the sign
will be coming down.

City Attorney Mike Rankin says he plans to discuss the proposed
settlement with the City Council in an executive session on April 21,
and Rankin recently told Superior Court Judge Carmine Cornelio: “I
don’t schedule (an item) for the mayor and council unless there’s
something real to talk about.”

The framework for the proposed legal settlement was outlined in a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by Rankin and a representative
of Clear Channel Outdoor last October. It would bring an end to a
lawsuit which began almost a decade ago and involved close to 200
billboards that the city claimed were illegal.

The settlement proposal calls for more than 100 of these billboards
to eventually be removed—a significant reduction of Clear Channel
Outdoor’s current total of about 370 advertising signs within city
limits.

About 40 percent of the billboards that would be removed, including
the one on 12th Avenue, would come down within a year of the
settlement’s completion. Another 30 percent would be gone between one
and three years later, and the remainder could remain for up to 15
years.

In addition, 23 of the billboards covered by the settlement would be
modified. These changes include relocating some of them, and reducing
the height of others.

Under the terms of the MOU, approximately 70 billboards included in
the original city lawsuit would be deemed legal.

“Assuming all the details can be worked out,” comments attorney Joy
Herr-Cardillo, “this is a win-win situation. … The Billboard Review
Committee is feeling good about it.”

Herr-Cardillo is a member of that citizens’ group, which was
instrumental in negotiating a 2006 billboard settlement between Clear
Channel Outdoor and Pima County. The committee is now involved with the
negotiations between City Hall and the billboard company.

Herr-Cardillo emphasizes that enforcement of the city’s sign code
hasn’t been compromised by the settlement; she calls that “a win for
everyone.”

Architect Kathy McLaughlin, also a member of the committee,
agrees.

“If the committee’s recommendations are followed,” McLaughlin says
of the details still to be ironed out, “this will be a settlement we
can live with.”

However, those yet-to-be-settled details are significant, like
defining what it means to replace structural items on a billboard by a
“like kind” of material.

“Wood can’t be replaced by metal,” McLaughlin says as an
example.

She also says that Clear Channel Outdoor and its predecessors in the
Tucson billboard industry often supplied vague or no drawings of
billboards to go with their permit applications—and she wants
that situation corrected.

Clear Channel Outdoor spokesman Tony Alwin declined to comment on
the proposed legal settlement. “It’s corporate policy not to discuss
issues in litigation,” he says.

Hyman Kaplan isn’t reluctant to share his opinions. Another member
of the citizens’ billboard group, Kaplan says: “The City Council should
go ahead with the proposal from the committee.

“We’re making (Clear Channel) meet code requirements,” Kaplan says
about outdoor lighting regulations that impact billboards. He says that
many billboards are bottom-lit, which violates the lighting code;
Kaplan says the settlement will require these signs to be lit from the
top.

Dan Brocious works at the Whipple Observatory on Mount Hopkins south
of Tucson and agrees with Kaplan. Also a member of the Billboard Review
Committee, Brocious says: “If the lighting portion of it moves ahead,
it will be much better for dark skies (in Tucson).”

Brocious believes Clear Channel Outdoor should support the
settlement to end the city’s lawsuit. “I think they’ll be glad at the
end of the day to have stability,” he says.

Recalling Tucson’s often contentious billboard history, McLaughlin
says that strong action against the huge signs actually began in
September 1985, when the City Council limited new billboards only to
areas along Interstate 10 and Interstate 19. After what some people saw
as a nasty political campaign, that decision was later ratified by
two-thirds of the voters.

“I’m appreciative of the perseverance of the council,” McLaughlin
says about the intervening period. “It wasn’t easy to take on the
billboard industry … and I would like to thank them for their
steadfastness. They (various Tucson City Councils) have put personnel
in place to hold the billboard industry accountable.”

Now, assuming the Billboard Review Committee’s recommendations are
followed, she urges the Council to support the proposed settlement.

“I think it’s a positive,” McLaughlin says. “The city won’t be
required to spend all its time and manpower pursuing lawsuits. …
Instead, (the billboard company) will have to conform to code
requirements.”

This article appears in Apr 16-22, 2009.