You've probably heard many outrageous claims by the billboard industry already, but here are some of the industries favorite myths:

Fact: Only a small percentage of billboards provide useful traveler information. Indeed, in 1997 six of the top 10 (and eight of the top 13) Billboard users were alcohol or tobacco manufacturers. What's more, a variety of alternatives, including logo signs, tourist-oriented directional signs (TODS), guidebooks, and new technology on-board navigation systems provide the necessary information in a less intrusive manner. Indeed, tourism spending in Vermont rose 50% in the two years after the state removed its last bill- board; and travel researcher Stanley Plog has found that Americans' favorite destinations are those which preserve their natural beauty and community character (including Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, and Vermont, all billboard-free).

Fact: The Supreme Court has ruled that cities may regulate and even ban billboards altogether (typified by the Court decision in Metromedia, Inc. v. city of San Diego, 101 S. Ct. 2882 (1981)) because they "take up space and may obstruct views, distract motorists, displace alternative uses of land, and pose other problems that legitimately call for regulation," (from City of Ladvue v. Gilleo, 114 S Ct. 2038 (1994)). Billboards are fundamentally a use of the public road - not of private property - deriving all of their value from their proximity to the road. 'The concept that one item gains its value from its proximity to another is called "the parasite principle." Given that billboards affect property values, community character, and traffic safety, it's no wonder that so many communities have tough billboard controls or that courts uphold these.

Myth: Billboard operators do not target low- income and minority neighborhoods with alcohol advertising.

Fact: In urban areas, billboard operators cluster billboards in low-income, minority neighborhoods; many of the billboards in these neighborhoods advertise alcohol. For example, a 1996 New Jersey study found not only that majority- minority Jersey City housed many more bill- boards per capita than surrounding jurisdictions but also that fully 35% (67 of 188) of the city's alcohol and tobacco billboards were within 500 feet of a school. Ironically the industry's own "Code of Advertising Practices" prohibits such billboards within 500 feet of schools.

Dozens of other studies echo these findings in Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, San Francisco, and elsewhere. Scenic America, work- ing with Baltimore activists, found that 75% of the billboards in that city were dumped in low- income minority neighborhoods and that 75% of the billboards in those neighborhoods advertised either alcohol or tobacco.

Fact: This claim is simply a self-serving way for billboard operators to lay claim to the tax dollars of hard-working Americans. Legally speaking, billboards are personal property (like cars or machines), and governments may remove them, after providing their owners enough time to recoup their investment - a process called amortization. Governments across the nation have successfully used amortization to remove not only billboards but also junkyards, strip joints, etc.

Moreover, no federal appeals court has ever found billboard amortization itself to violate the constitution.

Fact: There is no evidence that billboards have any benefit for the economy at all. In fact, more than 1,000 communities and four states prohibit billboards or have strict billboard control, and there is no evidence that this has had a negative impact on their economies. On the other hand, in the first two years of Vermont's billboard prohibition, tourist expenditures skyrocketed by 50%. In Williamsburg, VA, Raleigh, NC; Houston, TX; and Bellingham, WA, and many other cities, retail sales have increased since the enactment of tough billboard ordinances, particularly for gas stations and restaurants, two businesses the industry claims depend on billboards for advertising.

Myth: Public opinion polls show that people like billboards and find them useful.

Fact: Actually, the opposite is true. Reputable public opinion polls find that most Americans think billboards are ugly, intrusive, and uninformative. Not one reputable survey shows that people like billboards. On the contrary, independent polls around the country show that people don't like billboards. In Rhode Island people oppose billboards 56%-26%. By a 10 to I margin residents in Florida want to reduce the number of billboards. In Missouri, residents favor reducing the number of billboards by 69%-26%.

Meanwhile recorded votes speak for them- selves: in Jacksonville, FL despite a huge and costly publicity campaign by the billboard industry, residents voted overwhelmingly to prohibit billboards. In November, 1998 72% of Alaska residents voted that the state should remain forever billboard-free. Even when the billboard industry commissions the poll itself, the results are anti- billboard; in a poll done in Virginia at the bill- board lobby's behest, a clear majority of state residents said that billboards "damage scenic beauty."