| | 
| | | Council forced to dive into murky public sign issue | | February 26, 2010 | | | | Staff Writer | | UPDATE March 3: The D.C. Council voted unanimously yesterday to disapprove permits for three large "special signs" proposed as a trade-off for an outdoor advertising company's demolition of five aging billboards.
The vote was a quick close to the latest chapter of a lengthy and contentious debate over billboards in the nation's capital. Congress banned them here in 1931, and the council in 2001 placed a moratorium on additional "special signs," the flexible high-tech ads that can drape the entire sides of buildings.
But last fall, when the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs ordered removal of a few remaining billboards in wards 5 and 6, Clear Channel Inc. sued the city. The resulting legal settlement would have "compensated" the company for removing those billboards by awarding it permits for three new special signs elsewhere in the city.
That provision, however, requires council approval. And council members, lobbied by a vigorous coalition of preservation and neighborhood activists, said no.
"It might have actually increased blight by allowing more of these signs, which are not limited in size" and can remain up indefinitely, said Ward 4 member Muriel Bowser, whose committee oversees the regulatory department.
Clear Channel is represented by prominent attorney Fred Cooke. "We don't believe the issue is closed," Cooke said after the council's disapproval vote. "We are not without recourse," he said, declining to specify the company's next step.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The D.C. Council must decide by March 2 whether to authorize three giant "special signs" downtown to replace five dilapidated billboards torn down in December in wards 5 and 6. The chair of the committee that oversees the sticky signage issue predicts her colleagues will reject the deal.
"I don't think there's an appetite to approve more signs," Ward 4 Council member Muriel Bowser said last week after hearing testimony on a proposal to "compensate" advertising company Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. for taking down the old billboards.
A settlement agreement negotiated by D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles would allow the company to erect three of the huge — and profitable — special signs instead. But the council has authority to approve or block accompanying legislation that would permit the three special signs, and possibly more.
Here's the difference: Old-fashioned billboards, under city regulations, are limited in size to 300 square feet and, once torn down, cannot be relocated or rebuilt. The high-tech, flexible "special signs," which drape the sides of entire buildings, have no size limit and can be relocated within certain geographic bounds. A 2001 law placed a moratorium on new special signs and limited them to the city's central business district, the New York Avenue corridor and Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium.
Some of the same activists and preservationists who called special signs a blight on the city's landscape 10 years ago, when the controversy first flared, dominated the witness list for Bowser's hearing. Only one witness, representing Clear Channel, spoke up in the legislation's defense. The Near Northeast advisory neighborhood commission (ANC 6C) has voiced opposition to the plan.
A bit of background is in order. Congress banned billboards in the nation's capital in 1931, grandfathering only the 32 that predated its action. That number dwindled over the years, as buildings were torn down and neighborhoods redeveloped.
But in 2000, in what some saw as an end run around the billboard ban, regulatory officials pushed through a regulation allowing new "special signs." Council members failed to catch the change. After an uproar, the council slapped a moratorium on the special signs as well, allowing only the 32 that had already won permits.
More recently, the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs began drafting regulations to get rid of the remaining billboards. Only 10 authorized billboards remained, and the department last fall ordered Clear Channel to demolish five of them, all in residential areas.
The company promptly sued the city and, in preliminary hearings, a Superior Court judge indicated that Clear Channel was likely to prevail. Thus, Nickles' office drafted the settlement agreement and accompanying "Billboard Blight Removal Resolution," which would also allow the regulatory department to make similar trade-offs in the future for the handful of authorized billboards still standing.
Ward 2 member Jack Evans said he was "astonished" at the turn of events. "There was a very acrimonious, ugly debate" 10 years ago, he said. "This is the kind of issue you don't reopen." As for allowing more special signs, Evans said, "This is just a bad idea. There has to be a different way of dealing with compensation."
Attorney Fred Cooke, representing Clear Channel, stoutly defended the trade-off. Cooke testified that the five billboards were "lawfully constructed and operated. Taking them down with no revenue wasn't a viable option." He said so few billboards remain that there cannot be "a flood" of new special signs.
Under questioning, Cooke said his client is not necessarily getting a good deal. Clear Channel owned the billboards, but must negotiate with individual building owners to rent space for special signs. "We're going from the certainty of five locations to uncertainty of locations and rates," he said.
The company gets $50,000 to $70,000 a year in revenue from each billboard, Cooke said, but he could not estimate revenue from the special signs. "It's kind of what the market will bear."
A dozen other witnesses urged the council to vote the resolution down.
"This is a very bad deal," said Mary Tracy, president of Scenic America. "Clear Channel is removing five beat-up signs in low-traffic areas, and in return gets three huge signs, highly visible. This is right out of the billboard industry's playbook." Tracy said the industry is notably litigious, but she said other cities have fought it successfully in court.
"These things are witherproof, physically and legally, because they can be moved indefinitely," said Larry Hargrove of the Kalorama Citizens Association. The special signs are "visual pollution on a scale that would have staggered the authors of the original [billboard] ban."
Meg Maguire, of the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, offered a quick slide show of special signs already up, hawking beer, pizza and cars. "What makes special signs special?" she asked. "They're specially large, specially ugly and specially lucrative."
Linda Argo, director of the Consumer and Regulatory Affairs Department, defended the agreement with Clear Channel as the only way to get the billboards down quickly. "These billboards were right on top of homes, [with four of them] on a corner that attracts graffiti, vagrants, trash and debris. I considered that situation extraordinary," Argo testified.
She also insisted there would be no "proliferation" of special signs if the resolution passes, since so few legal billboards remain. Any new special sign permits would be authorized "case by case, with input from the community," Argo testified.
But Argo, along with a witness from the attorney general's office, took no position on the "Billboard Blight Removal Resolution."
The city's only obligation under the settlement with Clear Channel "is to use our best efforts to transmit the proposed regulations and approval resolution to the council," said assistant attorney general Bennett Rushkoff.
"Having done all that the settlement agreement required us to do, we take no position on the merits of the proposed regulations," Argo said.
Cooke disagreed. "The executive branch has an affirmative obligation" to push for passage of the resolution, he said. | | | | | Log in to comment on this article |
| |
|
| | | |
|
