IHPC Delays Digital Billboard Decision

I just posted this entry on the IBJ's Indiana Forefront.  I would only add - many thanks to Councillors Joe Simpson and Zach Adamson for supporting the broader community interest by asking that the digital billboard variance be delayed until after the sign regulations are reviewed in a vigorous, transparent, and public process. ---

Last night, as reported by Hayleigh Colombo in the IBJ, the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission continued to October 7, both the building design and the digital billboard variance proposed for Mass. Ave.

I was in the audience, waiting to speak to the digital billboard variance on behalf of the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations.

From November to June, 59 organizations joined forces to move the digital billboard debate from behind closed doors to the appropriate public venue – the upcoming Department of Metropolitan Development review of the entire sign ordinance.  After all the meetings and all the debate, the Council agreed.

The proposed ‘digital canvas’ envisioned for the building that would replace the Mass Ave fire station needs a variance expressly because it would be a digital billboard.  They propose posting ‘sponsors’ information either on 20% of the space or 20% of the time.  Motion and sound would be allowed.

A continuance was proposed by two Councillors – Joe Simpson, whose current district includes the site, and Zach Adamson, who is running for reelection to the new district boundaries that will include this site – via letter to the IHPC.  Initially the Commission was moving toward a continuance until after the Council passes the new sign ordinance, presumably some time next year.  Then the developer and his representative asked for the October 7 date so they could discuss it with the two Councillors.

Continuing this variance request is wise for a couple of reasons.  The broad community deserves its hard fought and hard won vigorous public process that would decide if digital billboards are right for Indianapolis.  If lifting the ban was found in the community’s best interest, then issues such as how to measure and regulate light levels, size, motion, sound, appropriate locations, interactivity with the driving public, and other safety issues would be discussed and appropriate parameters would be set.

If the Mass. Ave. digital billboard variance comes first, it could create a precedent and set a standard that became the tail that wagged the dog.  That, undoubtedly, was why John Kisiel, Vice President of Clear Channel, was in the audience for 5 hours last night.  Kisiel has stated that he was assigned to Indianapolis by Clear Channel to open Indy up to digital billboards.

Let’s face it, the billboard industry is a litigious group.  They have shown they will take cities to court if they can find any chink in the rules or application of the rules.  Indy’s billboard ban has successfully weathered their attempts to gain variances and prevailed in the subsequent lawsuits.  Granting this digital billboard variance would demonstrate uneven application of the ban.  Given these are the waning months for the Ballard administration, who know whether the variance would be challenged.  As they did in other cities, the biggest mess being in Los Angeles, this would give the billboard industry just the opening they need to seek unfettered and unregulated access to Indy’s streetscapes.

Some will say this is only relevant to the Mass. Ave. neighborhoods.  But, given the dynamics at play in the digital billboard arena, the digital billboard variance is about all of our neighborhoods.

Lobbyist Ties To Councillor Leroy Robinson Continue Unabated

Councillor Leroy Robinson, Chairman of the Metropolitan & Economic Development committee of the City-County Council, continues his cozy relationship with lobbyists who have business before his powerful committee.

His latest campaign finance report, covering contributions from January 1 and April 10 of this year, lists contributions from lobbyists D. William Moreau, Jr. and Greg Hahn.   Hahn is, and has been for some time, a registered lobbyist for Lamar Companies and Outfront Media, both billboard companies.  Moreau was registered to lobby for Clear Channel last year, but has not registered to lobby for them this year.

Hahn is also Robinson's Campaign Treasurer.

Hahn is not doing a particularly good job at that position as far as filing a complete report is concerned.  Hahn reports, as he should, donations for the reporting period as well as the total donation by an individual for the year-to-date.  Since these time periods are one and the same, both columns should be identical.  They are not.  Hahn lists himself as having given a $250 donation on March 15 and a year-to-date total of $500.  There is no entry of another time at which Hahn gave Robinson's campaign the other $250, as there is required to be. 

Additionally, Hahn lists Moreau's $250 donation on February 15, with a year-to-date total of $700.  Again, there is not another entry showing exactly when Moreau gave that money.

And, the summary cover page does not report the year-to-date figures.

Also, there is no mention of any donor's occupation, whereby the public might have a shot at putting two and two together.

You might be interested in the fact that on April 21, after the campaign finance reporting period ended, Robinson had a fundraiser, co-sponsored in part by not one, not two, not three, but four lobbyists with business before his committee --  Greg Hahn, Ahmed Young, Carl Drummer and Lacy Johnson.  Of course, the public will not be able to find out how much these 'interested citizens' helped Robinson's campaign raise that night, until after the Primary Election on May 5.

Robinson has tried to do some good things while in office, of that I have no doubt.  But, he is damaging, if not destroying, his reputation and the public confidence in him by continuing to have lobbyists front and center of his campaign.  The fact that they have business before his committee is cause for immense concern.

Billboard Industry Insider's Assessment of Councillor Attitudes Toward Prop 250

Gary Welsh is reporting quite the email from Clear Channel billboarder, John Kisiel.  It was written just over a year ago and the names of the persons to whom it is addressed have been omitted.

As someone who has been working strenuously against Prop 250, it was a chilling read.

I'm going to let you read it, then begin my comments.

From Gary's update to his post on Brian Eason's IndyStar report on Prop 250 and campaign contributions:

From: "Kisiel, John" <JohnKisiel@clearchannel.com>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 3:03 PM
Subject: Digital Billboard Resolution

Resolution: Attached is the final version of the Resolution regarding digital billboards. Bob Elrod looked at my original version and pared it back to make it more streamlined and more palatable for the Council and I agree with what he has produced.

 

Timing and Headcount in Caucus: I think we are to a point where we need to get a hard headcount from your respective Caucuses to see who we need to go after in order to get this initial piece through Council at the next meeting in three weeks. I have attached the Resolution along with my most recent assessment of support among the Council members. Please keep my assessment confidential. I thought you should have this so you can also target those members who are still undecided and give you the opportunity to give me updates in case I am wrong in how I am reading the Council. Please talk to the members of your Caucuses and to your Council about whether this can go on the next agenda or how this needs to proceed. Both the Mayor’s office and DMD are aware that we are following this process and we will update them on the timing.

 

Talking Points: I also attached a brief set of talking points on the 2% Solution to give you some additional background to refer to if asked about the proposal.

 

I will be at Council tonight in case you want to talk to me about any of this.

 

Thank you again for your work on this.       

Below is the lobbyist's assessment of council member's leanings on the issue last year when things first got rolling:

 

ZACH ADAMSON (D) ) Noncommittal, tough reelection fight may impact but he is tech savvy guy

FRANK MASCARI (D) Yes - sponsor    

JOHN BARTH (D)   Noncommittal, positive bias company buys billboards

JANICE MCHENRY (R) NO     

VERNON BROWN (D)  Noncommittal - one day yes another I don't know 

MICHAEL J. MCQUILLEN (R) Yes     

VIRGINIA J. CAIN (R) Yes - sponsor       

MARY MORIARTY ADAMS (D) Noncommittal - supporter of Marion County Fairgrounds and would probably like digital at Fairgrounds for revenue

JOSE M EVANS (R)  Yes     

WILLIAM C. OLIVER (D)  Unknown - no return calls or e-mails      

AARON FREEMAN (R)  Yes - R lead sponsor    

MONROE GRAY, JR. (D) Noncommittal negative bias      

VOP OSILI (D) Noncommittal positive bias (Councillor Simpson believes  he is a yes but voted for ban in 2006)

WILL GOODEN (R) Yes - offered to sponsor    

MARILYN PFISTERER (R) No - concerns about impact on neighborhoods 

PAMELA L. HICKMAN (D) Yes - sponsor       

LEROY ROBINSON (D) Yes - Chair of Committee where this will likely land 

JASON HOLLIDAY (R) Noncommittal negative bias   

BEN HUNTER ( R )  Yes - very strong supporter     

JACK SANDLIN (R) Noncommittal, positive bias. Councillor Freeman says he will vote yes

MAGGIE A. LEWIS (D) Noncommittal, positive bias - likes public safety element   

CHRISTINE SCALES (R) Noncommittal, negative bias     

ROBERT B. LUTZ (R) Yes -      

JEFFERSON SHREVE (R) Yes - may have issue as lessor for CCO and JR promotions

BRIAN MAHERN (D) Noncommittal    

JOSEPH SIMPSON (D) Yes - D Lead sponsor and strong supporter 

ANGELA MANSFIELD (D) Non committal - strong negative bias. Hates Lamar billboard at 86th and Ditch

STEVE TALLEY (D) Noncommittal - concerned about neighborhoods' position

JEFF MILLER Yes -BUT, he may have issue with neighborhoods has positive e-poll he conducted 

Now - for my reflections on this email....

First of all, are the taxpayers paying for Elrod's rewrite of the billboard industry proposed ordinance?  And what on earth is the "2% Solution"; with a capital S no less???

More importantly, HOW VERY COZY Kisiel is with whomever he sent this email to.  "Please keep my assessment confidential. I thought you should have this so you can also target those members who are still undecided and give you the opportunity to give me updates in case I am wrong in how I am reading the Council."  They seem to be taking orders from him, like he was their boss and they his employees.

He was also keeping DMD and the Mayor's office in the loop - to what end and how supportive those two entities were is not clear - "Both the Mayor’s office and DMD are aware that we are following this process and we will update them on the timing."  

All of this time, the public was not in the loop.  Kisiel had pegged the following people as sponsors:  Frank Mascari, Virginia Cain, Aaron Freeman, Will Gooden, Pam Hickman, and Joe Simpson.  Cain and Gooden serve on the Metropolitan & Economic Development committee (MEDC).

Of the MEDC members -
   Chairman Leroy Robinson - yes
   Zach Adamson - noncommittal
   John Barth - noncommittal
   Ginnie Cain - yes
   Mary Adams - noncommittal
   Vop Osili - noncommittal
   Will Gooden - yes
   Jeff Miller - yes
All Republicans on the committee plus the Chair - YES. 

Of the full Council, Kisiel thought he had 13 votes.  15 would be needed to pass.
   Mascari, McQuillen, Cain, Evans, Freeman, Gooden, Hickman, Robinson, Hunter, Lutz, Shreve, Simpson, and Miller.

I keep wondering who he addressed this email to.  Obviously it is at least two Councillors as he mentions their 'respective caucuses'.

Is this the way things are done on the Council?  Do industry insiders usually bark orders to their serfs on the Council?  I certainly cannot say.

Is this any way to serve the public and the public good?  I don't think so.

Billboard Lobby Donations Create an Appearance of a Conflict of Interest

Just posted on Indiana Forefront...
***

The powerful Metropolitan & Economic Development committee of the City-County Council has postponed a decision on the billboard industry-written Prop 250.  If enacted, Prop 250 would allow digital billboards now, and any future technology that fits in the same frame would also be allowed – without timely public or Council review.

IndyStar reporter, Brian Eason, reports that billboard lobbyists were extremely generous with campaign contributions last year – with more than $12,000 being donated.

He also reports that a lobbyist firm held a fundraiser for committee Chair, Leroy Robinson.  Robinson, by the way, was beneficiary of nearly a third of all billboard lobby donations last year.
Another committee member, Zach Adamson got $1100.

Eason notes that Council leadership in combination, pulled down more than $5000 from billboard lobby sources.

Those who chose to talk with Eason about the contributions didn’t seem to grasp that by accepting the money, the Councillors, at a minimum, solidified an appearance of a conflict of interest. 

Suspicious minds are already correlating the donations with the fast track that Prop 250 was on and the postponement of a vote after hours of testimony against Prop 250, rather than a vote to kill it.  I have been privately assured that, had it not been delayed, the vote would have been “NO”; that the delay means little.

The public trust is a valuable commodity and important, especially in an election year.

The Councillors who took billboard lobby money can and should return it.  That would help clear up the appearance of a conflict of interest that they helped establish by accepting the money in the first place.

Even If You Like Digital Billboards...

... you should hate Indy's proposed digital billboard ordinance.

I wanted to show an example of a City that put its community ahead of the billboard industry.  St. Petersburg, FL, and the 2012 deal they struck on digital billboards is the one example I'd like to point to today.  Gary Welsh, over at Advance Indiana, went through it's deal briefly a few weeks back, but I want to compare in some detail, their billboard deal with what is being proposed for Indianapolis.

Prop 250, written by the billboard industry and its lobbyists, will be back on the table at the January 26, Metropolitan and Economic Development committee of the City-County Council.

That proposal, unlike the St. Pete deal, has not only been written by the very industry the ordinance would regulate, it has not included any investigation of best practices nor any analysis from our professional planners in the Department of Metropolitan Development.  It's one thing to have a seat at the table, it is quite another to have them all. 

The only world view the Councillors have heard for three years is that of the billboard industry - their paid for 'science', their input on what is important for regulation, and their closed door rebuttals of points made late in the debate by the Community.

So, lets take a few minutes to compare what a vigorous public process produced, with what has happened here in Indianapolis.

 

Swapout Ratio and Total Number of Digital Billboards

St. Pete saw 83 static billboards come down, and a conversion of 6 others to digital faces, for a ratio of 89 to 6 or over 14:1.

Prop 250 would have an equal square footage of static face come down and a conversion of one static face for a digital face, for a ratio of 2:1.  The total number of digital billboards that can go up are 'limited' to 75 in the first three years, with no more than 4 per year until all static billboards are converted or taken down - for 500-750 digital billboards total.

 

Digital Billboard Spacing

St. Pete -- All digital billboards must be spaced so that a driver cannot read more than one face at a time, or a minimum distance of 2500 feet in any case.

Prop 250 -- Digital billboards may be separated by no less than 500 feet.

 

Ad Display

St. Pete -- Each ad must be shown for a minimum of 10 seconds, there can be no sequential ads (ala the old Burma Shave ads), and there must be an instantaneous change between ads.

Prop 250 -- Each ad must be shown for at least 8 seconds, there is no ban on sequential ads (which are known to distract drivers more than other ad types), and there may be up to a 2 second delay between ads (also known to cause driver distraction).

 

Regulation of Light Levels

St. Pete -- They adopted the best practice of measuring and regulating the amount of emitted light, rather than reflected light.  The equipment is pricier, but it allows the light emitted to be regulated so that it appears to be as lit as a static billboard, but no more.  Using equipment and standards for reflected light, does not allow such tuning of the appearance of digital billboards.  The billboard companies must pay for the equipment and pay for the training of code enforcement officers in the proper use of the equipment.

Prop 250 -- Relies on reflected light and the lighting standards generated by the billboard industry.  There is no requirement that the billboard companies pay for the equipment and training.

 

Order of Removal and Conversion

St. Pete -- All static billboards used as swapped boards, must be removed before any permit is issued for any digital conversion.

Prop 250 -- The static billboard to be removed as part of the swap must be removed within 30 days of the issuance of the conversion permit.  A letter stating it has been removed must be filed.  There is no requirement that the removal be verified by Code Enforcement.

 

Removal of Structures and Re-permitting of Swapped Locations

St. Pete -- All structures must be removed along with the faces of static billboards counted as a swap.  There is a prohibition on reconstructing any sign removed, unless the ordinance is invalidated in Court, and then reconstruction must abide by the time formula noted below in "Legal Challenges to Law" section.

Prop 250 - There is no requirement that the pole be removed when a static face is removed as part of a swap.  There is no prohibition on the reissuance of a sign permit for any location where a static sign was removed as part of a swap.

 

Twenty Year Limitation on Digital Billboards

St. Pete -- After 20 years, all digital faces must be removed and converted back to static faces.

Prop 250 -- Any digital face may remain forever, and is allowed morph into any new technology that comes forward to replace the current LED standard without further public input, debate, or permits.

 

City-sponsored Ads

St. Pete -- The City is entitled to 1 ad slot per rotation during 12 separate 10-day periods per year to provide ads for non-profits and civic associations.

Prop 250 - There is no provision for free ad space to the City.

 

Future Changes to the Law

St. Pete -- If the laws change in the future, driven by new safety standards, the digital billboards will NOT be grandfathered into the old standards and will be required to meet the terms of the new law.

Prop 250 -- There is no provision for changes to local, state or federal laws and standards generated in the future due to a better understanding of safety issues.

 

Legal Challenges to the Law

St. Pete -- Should legal challenges to the 2012 St. Pete law be successful in Court, there will be a limit on how many static billboard may, by right, be reconstructed.  If the Court overturns the law within 5 years, only half the original static billboards may be re-commissioned.  If it takes action between years 5 and 10, only one quarter of the original billboards can come back.  And if the Court acts after 10 years, then no static billboards can come back.

Prop 250 -- There is no provision for what happens if Court action overturns the proposed Ordinance.

 

Penalties

St. Pete -- Fines for violating the ordinance - $1000 per day for the first violation, $2500 per day for the second, and $5000 per day for the 3rd and any subsequent violation.

Prop 250 -- Does not change the current law, which appears to be $50 for the first violation in a 12-month period and $100 for the second and any subsequent violation.




There was not a single item contained in Indy's Prop 250 that was superior to the ordinance passed by St. Petersburg in 2012.  That probably is because the process used was behind closed doors and beyond the reach of any opinions other than those of the billboard industry.

Our community deserves a transparent and vigorous public process for any of our laws, especially one so important to the aesthetics of our City and the safety of our driving public.

Prop 250 should be killed off as it is not repairable and does not have any resemblance to good public policy for Indianapolis.



references: St. Pete zoning professionals' presentation to the City Council, Scenic St. Pete report on specifics passed into law, and City Council notes on the lease agreement.

Neighborhood Opposition to Digital Billboards Grows

This was posted on the Indiana Forefront blog.


***

I am always impressed with the folks who engage in their neighborhoods.  The amount of talent and passion is a huge resource that forever improves and invigorates Indianapolis, even if not appreciated as such from some quarters.

A perfect case in point is the coming together this past Wednesday, held at the absolutely beautiful Indiana Landmarks facility.

Representatives of 28 Neighborhood Organizations throughout Marion County braved the frigid weather to assemble and discuss Council Proposal 250.  This Council Resolution, which its  lobbyist/billboard company authors hope will lead to the legalization of digital billboards in Marion County, is still pending at the Council.  It was recently returned to the Metropolitan & Economic Development committee for further consideration, after an initial outburst of opposition erupted from Indy's Neighborhoods.

The 2 hour meeting at Indiana Landmarks included an exchange of information and discussion among the attendees.

The statement representing the overall opinions was,

"The consensus position within our coalition is that both the proposed ordinance, and the path it's traveled thus far, are unacceptable."

Official positions of individual Organizations are being taken as these representatives return to their groups and as other Organizations become aware that Prop 250 exists.

Once again, my faith in Neighborhoods is renewed, and my respect for Neighborhood leaders deepens.

How Many Existing Billboards are Illegal?

I posted this on the Indiana Forefront blog today.

***

If you listen to the representatives of Indy's three big billboard companies very closely, you will hear them talking about swapping and converting "legal non-conforming" billboards under the proposal written by themselves for themselves.  I refer to Prop 250, which the full Council sent back to committee on Monday night.

A legal non-conforming use is one that has been granted a certificate of legal non-conforming use (LNCU).  To obtain that certificate, documentation must be submitted showing the non-allowed use was in nearly continuous existence at a particular location since before 1969 or prior to the creation of the ordinance that created the non-conformity.

I have in my possession a list of billboard locations that Clear Channel offered, a couple of years ago, to swap out for digital billboards at new locations.  At the time, a Code Enforcement officer looked up locations to see if any permits had been obtained.  Of 42 locations with 52 sign faces, permits could not be found for 24 locations with 31 faces.

As of yesterday when I checked, none of these had certificates of LNCU noted in the City's online database.

Without a permit or an LNCU certificate, the billboard is illegal.

It would be an outrage to pass any change in the sign ordinance to allow swapping of illegal static faces for digital faces.

It would also be an outrage to pass any change in the sign ordinance that would allow the conversion of an illegal static face to a shiny new digital face.

Prop 250 does not disallow such exchanges.

The billboard companies should make public, before the January 26 Metropolitan & Economic Development committee meeting, a map of their current billboard locations as well as a table listing the address of each parcel and either the permit number or LNCU certificate number associated with the billboard at that location.

Any billboard that has neither a permit nor certificate is illegal and should be taken down at the expense of the billboard company with all due haste.

Digital Billboard Lobbyists Galore

A brief update - Prop 250 will be sent back to committee at tonight's Council meeting, the IBJ's Cory Schouten reports.

Now, without further delay - my post on lobbyists for the billboard industry.

One of the comments I made in my 'Ten Things You Didn't Know About the Proposed Digital Billboard Ordinance', brought a considerable amount of energy from the billboard industry representative during our meeting last Monday afternoon.

They came across as absolutely insulted that I would say that Prop 250 was "drafted by lobbyists for the billboard industry".  Who knew that members of the billboard industry would look down on lobbyists?

Representatives of Clear Channel, Lamar, and Outfront Media (formerly CBS Outdoor) made it clear that John Kisiel of Clear Channel wrote the majority of if, with their input.  No sense mentioning that Bose Public Affairs Group is listed on the proposal itself as having drafted it.  Kisiel told us he had to register as a lobbyist in order to talk with the Councillors.  So much for it not being lobbyist written.

But, the exchange sent me to the lobbyist registration for the City and County.

There has been a ramp up in the number of registered lobbyist representing the interests of billboard companies in the last two year - so much so there is no shortage of them.

Here is what I found by year:

2010 -- 57 individuals registered  -- 0 for billboard companies

2011 -- 34 individuals registered -- 1 from Bose, McKinney, & Evans representing both Lamar and CBS Outdoor

2012 -- 43 individuals registered -- 2 for billboard companies  -- 1 from BME for Lamar, the other John Kisiel of and for Clear Channel

2013 -- 28 individuals registered -- 4 for billboard companies -- 2 from Barnes & Thornburg for Clear Channel, 1 from BME for Lamar, and again Mr. Kisiel for Clear Channel

2014 -- 25 individuals registered -- 7 for billboard companies -- 4 from BME for Lamar and CBS-Indy, and 3 from B&T for Clear Channel.

The agencies listed as points of contact for these folks were primarily the City-County Council, but also included the Mayor's Office, DMD, DCE, IMPD, IndyGo, the MDC, and the Office of Corporation Counsel.

Ten Things You Didn't Know About The Proposed Digital Billboard Ordinance

This was just published on the Indiana Forefront blog.  Availability to Had Enough Indy is still handled like a porn site on the City Hall internet.

***

Now that the proposed digital billboard ordinance has been voted out of Council committee, it might be a good time to review the problems with the proposal.

1) The proposed ordinance, drafted by lobbyists for the billboard industry, requires that in year three of the law, the Council must decide if the law should continue to allow conversions into the future or not.  Once the third year is over, the taxpayers would be on the hook to pay the future value of potential conversions to each billboard company, should the Council or the Mayor or the public decide to change the law back. Say a billboard company has 1000 signs in Marion County (as at least one company does). In year one they can convert 6, year two another 6, and in each year thereafter they can convert 2 to digital. That gives this billboard company guaranteed conversions for nearly 500 years. The future value would be hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in revenue for each conversion. Quick math isn't even necessary to calculate the payoff would be catastrophic to the taxpayers.

2) The proposal grants a monopoly to those billboard companies now operating in Marion County. Only these 3 or 4 companies with existing billboards may convert them to digital. Those billboard companies who are not so qualified, will surely sue the City. It won't be Lamar or Clear Channel that pick up the litigation costs. No, the taxpayers of Indianapolis will.

3) Digital signs can be bigger that those they replace. The proposal says that any sign face of more than 300 square feet can be replaced by a digital billboard face of 672 square feet. There are three legally allowed configurations that are more than 300 square feet - a 378, a 600, and a 672.

4) The size of a digital billboard along a freeway can be more than twice the size now allowed. The current billboards along freeways are 300 square feet, compared to the 672 square feet that would be allowed for digital faces.

5) There is no requirement that the pole for an existing billboard be taken down when the sign face is removed as part of a swap for a digital billboard. It is possible that this is required elsewhere in the City's laws, but it certainly is not specified in the proposed ordinance.

6) If a billboard was removed as part of the conversion, another company (perhaps even the same company) could apply for a new billboard permit at that exact location. As long as the location met the criteria for regular billboard sizes and distances, a permit would have to be granted. This would severely impact any expectation for an actual reduction in the number of billboards in the County.

7) By any lucid individual, a digital billboard would qualify as an Electronic Variable Message Sign. But, since the proposed ordinances declares that not to be true, it would not be regulated as an EVMS. Currently EVM signs must be 600 feet or more from homes. The proposal would allow a digital billboard to be 500 feet from a home - and it is far brighter than the much smaller EVM signs.

8) Current law requires billboards to be separated by at least 1000 feet on city streets and no more than 2 per mile along freeways. Digital faces need only be 500 feet apart.

9) The proposed ordinance would allow up to a 2 second gap between ads. Studies have shown that gaps between ads are a hazard to driving, drawing longer gazes off the road and traffic. Two seconds is the distraction threshold accepted by the scientific community as hazardous driving conditions that lead to accidents and near accidents.

10) There is language in the proposed ordinance that claims that digital billboards are not intermittently lit, despite what lucid individuals might actually think.  It is there not only to get around our local EVMS laws, but also to circumvent the 1971 agreement between the State of Indiana and the US Federal Highway Administration on the control of outdoor advertising along freeways. In 2007, FHWA issued a memorandum that said digital billboards did not violate the intermittent lighting ban. That memorandum is being litigated in the Courts. If, as some expect, the memorandum is overturned, it would leave Indianapolis in an unenviable legal position - rescind the digital billboard ordinance and pay the future value of thousands of conversions -- or stand in violation of Federal Law for any digital faces erected along freeways in Marion County and face losing federal highway dollars. Either way it would be entirely too expensive for the taxpayer.

This proposed digital billboard ordinance is not only an affront to a vigorous public process, it is bad law for Indianapolis.

Proposed Digital Billboard Ordinance is an Insult to the Public Process

I just posted the following entry on the Indiana Forefront Blog - because my Had Enough Indy blog ist verboten in City Hall.

***

The proposed digital billboard ordinance, coming before a Council committee Monday night, is an insult to the public process.

This lobbyist written law would overturn the compromise embodied in the current law, which bans digital billboards in Indianapolis.  The current law was created with a robust, public process that included all stakeholders and was led by a bipartisan Council effort.

The current law has been vigorously defended, both before the Boards of Zoning Appeals, the Metropolitan Development Commission, and in the Courts.

The proposed ordinance would declare that digital billboards erected in Indianapolis are not really illuminated by, among other things, intermittent lights.  Yah, right.  And the emperor is fully clothed.
This particular phrase is included as an end run around a long standing agreement between the Indiana Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration that, due to the intermittent lighting, bans digital billboards.

The lobbyists also included a provision that would allow the various ads to take up to 2 seconds to transition.  The literature clearly demonstrates that this is a particularly dangerous thing to do.  Two seconds inattention to the road ahead, is considered a hazardous driving condition.  The delayed changeover is specifically used in order to call attention to the ad, as drivers fix their attention, waiting for the next one to appear.

I could mention that a Michigan study demonstrated a statistically significant rise in accidents within 0.25 miles of digital billboards, even while the average accident rate on their highways fell between 2004 and 2012 – representing the years before and after  installation of electronic billboards.  The deviation is an 18% increase in accidents near such a billboard over the expected number.
I could also mention that a 2013 study of digital billboard induced driver distraction in Sweden, led that country to remove the signs and ban them.

Or, I could mention that an Israeli study that demonstrated a decrease in accidents of more than 30% when billboards were covered or removed along a busy Tel Aviv highway.  Injury and deaths from these accidents dropped 69%.

I could mention lots of studies.  But that is not the point I most want to make here.

The billboard lobbyists have been haunting the back rooms of City Hall for years now.  The total revision of our zoning laws has been going on for the last three.  The public could have been included in a review of the digital billboard ban in a comprehensive and valid way.

Instead, we are left out of the loop by some of our own elected officials.  Our previous efforts and our previous compromises are thrown aside as insignificant and meaningless history.

Its bad enough that lobbyists for any industry are allowed free rein to write our laws.  Its even worse when they are overturning a law that involved so many people, so many hours, and so much effort and money to create and defend.