c
Home About Us Get Involved Membership Newsletter Outdoor Advertising Current Issues Scenic Alerts Awards Scenic Byways Rustic Roads Model Ordinances Photos FAQs |
|
Billboard Control Each year, over 200 communities enact tough billboard controls. That's because billboard control improves community character and quality life, both of which directly impact local economies. In fact, despite billboard industry claims to the contrary, communities and states that enact tough billboard controls enjoy strong economic growth. The billboard industry often states that controlling outdoor advertising will render a locale an economic ghost town. In fact, the undeniable aesthetic improvement to a community resulting from billboard control actually helps the economy As a five-year study of 35 cities by the Mississippi Research and Development Center concluded, the way a community looks affects how both residents and visitors feel about it. An attractive community has a better chance at industry, including tourism." Billboard control is good for business Communities can thrive without billboards. Most billboards have no connection to the local economy. They advertise either national products (tobacco and alcohol among them), or out-of- state products and services. In addition, while the billboard owners often pay little or no taxes on the actual boards to local governments, the billboard companies enjoy high profit margins of 15 to 50 percent. Billboard industry spokesmen claim that businesses such as gas stations and eating and drinking establishments would be devastated financially by reduction or elimination of their outdoor advertising. On the contrary, in cities and towns such as Williamsburg, VA, Raleigh, NC, and Houston, TX, the period following implementation of stricter billboard controls and/or bans on new billboard construction was marked by steady growth of sales in these industries. In Williamsburg, VA, sales for eating and drinking establishments grew from $47,977,000 in 1988 to $80,59S,OOO in 1992, three years after billboard controls were toughened. In 1991 alone, total retail rose about 44%. In Raleigh, NC, sales for eating and drinking establishments rose from $243,000,000 in 1989, before billboard control, to $306,806,000 in 1992 after controls were introduced, a rise of about 20%. The total retail sales in Houston, 7X, grew over 100% from about $9,000,000,000 in 1981, the year after a ban on new billboard construction was passed, to about 19,000,000,000 by 1992. For eating and drinking establishments alone, the total rose from $908,016,000 in 1981 to $2,099,184,000 in 1992. That year, the Houston city council passed by a vote of 12 to 3 a new ordinance with amortization provisions which will further reduce the number of billboards. Sometimes, businesses realize the improvements that billboard control can make to an economy more than the general public. For example, 77% of the members of the Traverse City Area Chamber of Commerce favored "elimination of billboards", compared to sixty-six percent of county residents. On one section of road in Hampton, VA, there were so many signs, a driver going 45 mph would need to read 1,363 words per minute just to understand all the information. This is five times the normal reading speed of a stationary person. Signs are necessary to provide direction and to index our surroundings. But excessive signs provide neither service. In fact, billboards contribute to visual clutter. Moreover, billboards are both a symptom and a cause of urban blight. As City of Birmingham Councilor David Herring stated, "When you see neighborhoods that are distressed, you almost always see that visual pollution." Billboard control is good for tourism Billboard control benefits tourism, as well. The President's Commission on Americans Outdoors reports that "natural beauty" is the most important criterion for adults in choosing a site for outdoor recreation. As several surveys make clear, billboard controls help preserve the natural beauty and scenic resources of a community. By a 10 to I margin, Floridians preferred reducing the number of billboards over further increases. 69% of Missourians believed that fewer billboards would make their state more attractive to tourists, while just 26% disagreed. A Rhode Island survey found 2 to I support for a ban on new billboards. The economic evidence is definitive. For example, billboard-free Vermont enjoyed a 50% rise in tourism expenditures in the two years after removing its last billboard. In addition, the number of visitors rose by nearly l0%. "The billboard ban provided not only a level playing field for all of us, opened the roadways to scenic vistas that created more than compensating publicity." Lymon Orton, Vermont storeowner
Vermont's tourism revenues rose by 50% in the two years after the state banned billboards. Alaska, Hawaii and Maine all have billboard bans, and all are prime tourist destinations. Other tourist destinations with strong billboard controls include: Big Sur, CA, Holland, MI, Nag's Head, NC, Portland, OR, and Boulder, CO. "Tourism is important to the economy of our state, and the state's business community understands the need to protect and preserve the beauty of the islands." Hawaii DOT (Hawaii has had a total ban on billboards for decades.)
'Billboards contribute a miniscule amount to our economic well-being, but they impose a high cost. They detract from Colorado's attractiveness to tourists and from the pleasant surroundings for our
residents." - Richard Lamm, former Governor of Colorado 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Washington DC 20003 |
© February 2004, Citizens for a Scenic Wisconsin, Inc. , La Crosse, WI USA. All rights reserved worldwide. |
scenicwisconsin.org