header photo

Scenic St. Petersburg

An Affiliate of Scenic Florida

Ordinance Issues

Top Ten Eleven Reasons to Reject the Digital Billboard Ordinance

1. It is full of loop-holes, raises more questions that it answers, and isn't ready for public comment, let alone a vote to adopt it.  So said the Planning and Visioning Commission, which voted 8-0 to advise Council to defer "until they had something written that was suitable for public comment and Commission review".

2. The safety issue is the big elephant in the room and is reason enough to delay until the Federal Highway study is complete.

3. The second biggest issue is the secrecy and bothersome speed with the city is racing to adopt the ordinance -- perhaps being driven by Clear Channel's schedule to get something in place AHEAD of the safety study.

Getting more specific,  there are a number of other issues associated with the proposed wording of the ordinance including:

4.  Conflict with the city's Comprehensive Plan, which has identified visual blight and poor sign control as primary detriments to the city's appearance.

5. Height increase: the height limit for billboards in the existing ordinance is 25 feet above the adjacent roadway crown.  Under the proposed ordinance a digital billboard could be 65' above the crown, or perhaps even 100 feet above ground - or higher - adjacent to an elevated interstate ramp. The ordinance has only a 500' provision for separation from residentially-zoned districts.  If a billboard is 100' above ground, it would surely be obtrusive, but it would also shine into homes adjacent to the roadways.

6.  Other than the limits in the current sign ordinance (1500' spacing) there is no specific requirement for distances between billboards, and thus no limit on the number of billboards that may be placed along the roadways at the locations specified, and no limit on the number of sign faces per billboard structure.  It isn't even clear whether the new ordinance would maintain the minimum distance requirement between boards.  What will prevent the proliferation of digital billboards on our major roads?

7. The city says that they will have 'negotiated agreements' where removal of existing billboards is required to allow installation of new digital billboards.  But this requirement isn't in the ordinance.  Even if it was doesn't this have the effect of 'locking out' new entrants or those who have fewer than 10 boards to swap for the one (or more) digital boards?  Is that legal?   This question was asked by the Chair of the DRC.

8. Status of billboards to be removed in the 'swap' deal: Of the 100 billboards being removed, how many of them are 'non-conforming', that is, illegal under our current sign code?  Is Clear Channel offering to remove illegal boards in return for installing boards that are - in the current instantiation of the ordinance - also illegal?  If we want fewer billboards in the city, why not simply insist that Clear Channel remove the non-conforming boards?  We should separate out the removal of non-conforming boards from any kind of 'swap' deal.  This comment was made by one of the DRC members.

9.  Why does the city think we can treat off-premise signs differently than on premise signs?  If we allow digital (changeable) signs won't every business in the city have the right to install one on their premises?   Courts around the country have said 'yes'.

10.  Message change intervals: if we were to permit digital billboards, we should require instantaneous changes not a message 'fade' of up to two seconds.  Fading messages approximate movement and increase driver distraction.  The current Clear Channel Pinellas County proposal provides for instantaneous changes.

11.  Who wrote this ordinance?  The wording is eerily similar to the proposed Tampa ordinance drafted by Clear Channel attorneys.  If in fact the content was provided by the billboard industry, shouldn't we have expert outside counsel review it before it gets approved?  The billboard industry is noted for writing ordinances that benefit them and not the public.  See the attached document for samples of the Tampa and St. Petersburg ordinances.

STOP THIS DANGEROUS AND SECRET DEAL

Take Action NOW - Click Here!

REFERENCE LIBRARY HIGHLIGHTS

Refering to Large Numbers of Flawed Industry Sponsored Studies Doesn't Prove Safety

Click here to view the report. A Critical, Comprehensive Review of Two Studies Recently Released by the Outdoor Advertising Association of America

Industry Insider, Richard Erickson Talks about Swapping out Non-profitable Boards for Digital Billboards: Click here to read about Rope-A-Dope and see a copy of his letter to his local Scenic Affiliate when they were facing the Billboard industry on this issue

Frequently Asked Questions

 
Q. How many billboards are there now?
A. No one seems to know for sure. The city admits they don't have a current inventory, although they've started driving around to see if they can count them. The Mayor's press release on the city web site (www.stpete.org) says there are 260, but city staff testified at the DRC meeting that there were 180. C.O.N.A. has submitted a request to Development Services for a complete inventory identifying the owner, location (intersection), structure size (height), number of faces, face size, etc. You'd think after three years of work on this the city would have this information nailed down.
 
Q. What are the restrictions on the total number of billboards?
A.  The city's existing sign ordinance - in place since 1992 - is so restrictive as to size and placement that St. Petersburg has a de-facto ban on billboards.  Removing that ban is why the billboard industry wants to swap their old billboards, which are poor moneymakers because they are mostly small, old, and mounted low to the ground. Once the ordinance is revised they'd be able to replace some of the old boards with new, taller digital billboards.
 
Note that our old billboards are disappearing over time due to attrition. The billboards that used to be on 4th St N between about 60th Ave N and the I-275 entrance ramp at the city limits have been removed already due to re-development. There are now a Dunkin' Donuts, a Starbucks, and an apartment complex where billboards used to stand. If we were just to keep the current de-facto ban in place over time virtually ALL of the old billboards would simply go away.
 
Q. What are the restrictions on where they are placed?
A. Under the proposed ordinance digital billboards could be placed within 100 feet of the right-of-way of the interstate, including the downtown feeders. Note that 'right-of-way' includes on and off ramps as well as all the overpasses. Additionally they would be permitted on Tyrone Blvd, Roosevelt Blvd, Gandy Blvd, and 34th St. They would be prohibited on the same site as a historic structure or within a historic district or within 500' of a historic structure or residentally zoned property.
 
Q. Are there size limits and are they negotiable?
A. The ordinance limits the maximum size to 14 x 48 feet. This is a statewide limit. The proposed ordinance would raise the allowable height (measured from the crown of the adjacent roadway / overpass to the BOTTOM of the sign) from 25' to 65'.  Since some overpasses are 35' or more above grade and the signs are about 20' high, you could easily have a sign that is 100' in the air, or more. You'll be able to see these signs from a mile away, or more.
 
Q. How many other companies will be eligible to add new billboards?
A. Good question. The ordinance as drafted has no limits on new entrants.  Digitial billboards are gigantic moneymakers. A typical interstate board might generate a half-million dollars a year in revenue. Anyone feel like starting up the C.O.N.A. Billboard Company, Inc.?
 
Q. What are the difference between county and city ordinances?
A. The Pinellas sign ordinance treats digital billboards the same as conventional billboards, thus any legal billboard location in the County is eligible for installation of a digital billboard. The Pinellas ordinance requires a one-minute interval between sign changes, the St. Petersburg ordinance would allow 10-second messages.  The Pinellas ordinance requires instantaneous message changes, the city ordinance would allow a two-second 'fade' from one message to the next.