How King County, Legislature came to say no to electronic billboards - or at least 'not yet'
Clear Channel offers free message alerts if the state and county will let it convert its billboards to "televisions on sticks." But some lawmakers see more blight than boon to the idea.
Outdoor Advertising Association of America
It’s been a tough couple weeks for Clear Channel, the Texas-based media conglomerate that’s seeking to make image-shuffling, highly lucrative digital billboards roadside and cityscape fixtures all across the nation.
In recent years, the e-board wave had seemed irresistible; in 2007 the Federal Highway Administration ruled that billboards that change images every eight seconds or so do not violate a federal ban on “intermittent” or “flashing” roadside advertising. Since then, according to Clear Channel, governments in 43 states have approved them– including, last year, Oregon, which used to be renowned for its tough billboard restrictions.
But now that wave has crashed and broken in Washington. Even Clear Channel — which is owned by Bain Capital (of Mitt Romney fame) and other private equity partners — does not possess unlimited persuasive powers. Late last month both King County and the Washington Legislature tacitly said no thanks to digital billboards, and to Clear Channel’s offer of free emergency and missing-person alerts within its ad rotations.
As late as last September, the county’s assent seemed a done deal. A majority of County Council members had already voted in committee for Clear Channel’s proposal to convert most or all of its 21 conventional billboards in county jurisdiction to what one commentator calls “televisions on sticks.” But then the council received a late blast of citizen complaints and plaintive pleas from suburban cities south of Seattle, which feared they’d inherit the unwelcome billboards when they annexed more county territory.
Council members decided to pause and reconsider (or, as they put it, undertake environmental review), then added restrictions on where the digital boards can be located. Now they’ve decided not to proceed at all “in the foreseeable future,” says Jeanne Keenan, an aide to County Councilmember Jane Hague, a prime sponsor of the legislation. “Councilmembers Hague and [Larry] Phillips have decided not to reintroduce the legislation, which would have to be done by the end of January. Then they’ll be busy with the comp plan, and later the budget.”
Keenan says the councilmembers paused because of objections raised by several suburban cities that feared they’d inherit digital boards that they themselves wouldn’t allow in planned future annexations. But the council also received a late blast of comments from hundreds of residents who objected to adding a juiced-up form of commercial intrusion, visual blight, and driver distraction to the roadways. Such complaints were enough to persuade Tacoma’s city council and mayor to reverse an earlier decision allowing Clear Channel to convert many of its boards there, and face the inevitable lawsuit.
No such legal rumbling in King County. Keenan says “the company” — Clear Channel — “was fine with that” decision not to go ahead. The council had already tightened the terms of a bill that would originally have let an owner swap out conventional printed billboards one-for-one for digitals capable of flashing thousands of ad messages per day. “As amended, the bill might have allowed only one digital billboard in the whole county.”
Even before that, the immediate stakes were fairly small: Clear Channel has only 21 billboards in unincorporated King County, and its effort to go digital there was seen as a stepping stone toward larger markets such as Seattle, with 520 billboards, and highways statewide, with even more. The company meanwhile worked its magic in Olympia, as usual pitching the conversion to what one commentator calls “televisions on a stick” as a boon to law enforcement and emergency services; hence the bill’s title, “authorizing the use of digital outdoor advertising signs to expand the state's emergency messaging capabilities.”
Clear Channel and other members of the self-described “out-of-home advertising” industry ardently tout the lifesaving value of such capabilities. The Outdoor Advertising Association of America reports that, nationwide, billboard companies have posted more than 700 AMBER alerts for missing children since 2008, and aided in the apprehension of 47 fugitives. Last year it estimated that the FBI would use more than 40 million donated eight-second “message units” to disseminate its most-wanted list.
Billboard opponents, who recently mounted an online video campaign against the e-board proposal, question the value of such alerts. They contend that most of the crimes posted on the boards are actually long-ago cold cases rather than emergencies, and that flashing them across the landscape instills an exaggerated, even deceptive fear of crime. That AMBER alerts posted days or weeks after the fact are useless at saving children abducted by deadly sickos rather than feuding parents. And that nearly all the “emergencies” broadcast are really just routine highway alerts.
Nevertheless, last year’s “emergency messaging” bill made it through the Senate and cleared the House Transportation Committee, but died without a vote in House Rules. This year Clear Channel started in the House, with a similar bill, HB 2636, and a new prime sponsor, Democrat Dave Upthegrove of Des Moines. At first it seemed the state might be more receptive. After all, the cash-hungry Washington Department of Transportation has been eagerly seeking ways to profit from digital advertising itself. It screens ads on LED screens mounted onboard ferries and in terminals, and last year began experimenting with banner ads on the state ferries website. WSDOT is now completing a study of potential revenues to be gotten from billboard fees, which would doubtless be enhanced if it opened the door to “televisions on sticks.”
Nevertheless, the closer legislators looked at what Clear Channel was offering, the less they liked it. “The emergency notification is a great idea in itself, but it’s no reason to put up electronic billboards all over the state,” says House Transportation Committee chair Judy Clibborn. “I don’t like them myself, and there are people who hate them a lot. Most of our members from the north drive through Fife and see [the flashing billboards installed on tribal land along I-5]. They don’t want more of those.”
What about more “emergency messaging capabilities” for WSDOT? “They don’t need it,” says Clibborn. “We already have more digital alert readers than ever” — about 226 permanently installed, according to WSDOT, plus trailer-mounted portables for special circumstances. And so her committee hasn’t scheduled a hearing on HB 2636, and doesn’t expect to before a Tuesday (Feb. 7) deadline. “I don’t think it’s going anywhere this year,” she says. Clear Channel's own lobbyist calls the bill "dead."
But there’s always next year. The company says it hasn't yet decided whether it will try again then.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Mon, Feb 6, 1:18 p.m. Inappropriate
Madison Ave I am tired of you jamming propaganda down my throat
- GO HOME - STAY HOME
Posted Mon, Feb 6, 2:10 p.m. Inappropriate
Two words: paint guns.
Posted Mon, Feb 6, 3:29 p.m. Inappropriate
They are annoying and very distracting
Posted Tue, Feb 7, 7:49 a.m. Inappropriate
Televisions on Sticks! How it is that our legislators buy-in to the idea that these are a good thing? This is another story on the power of an industry lobby over the non-existent voice of the community. Why should we have to become outraged? With such real and pressing issues as budget shortfalls and education malfunction it should be our politicians first who say "go away!" to an industry that pollutes our environment, wants to eliminate local jobs, takes its earnings out of state, repeatedly burdens government with manipulative litigation, and gets virtually free access to our eyes via our public roads.
The emergency messaging and pro-bono government ads are a cheap 1% ploy to get 99% advertising. Over and again, surveys show the people of Washington State value our environment as a unique and valuable asset which both keeps and brings people here. Why would we even consider, for a second, degrading that asset with huge TVs on sticks?
Posted Tue, Feb 7, 8:17 a.m. Inappropriate
Washington's equity is its natural beauty. That's our ticket to visitors and a vibrant economy and a great quality of life. All across America cities and states are being "sold" trash in the sky for short term corporate profits. Shame on all of you out of home billboard companies for disguising your destruction of our environment in the name of police and firemen and "safety". We see your newscasts getting free PR for your "community service" to blast crime in our faces. You sell that your digital billboards are static and then "broadcast" Madonna's music video on 1600 digital billboards across the country - you doubletalk on intentions saying one thing and then do something else. Shame on you law enforcement for being so eager to jump into "bed" with these corporate deceivers. America deserves better from all parties.
Posted Tue, Feb 7, 9:10 a.m. Inappropriate
Didn't this all start with the city council falling over the furniture promising the moon to Russel Investment to get +them to abandon Tacoma for Paris on Puget Sound? I guess they giggled out a few perks they couldn't deliver.
Posted Tue, Feb 7, 10:36 a.m. Inappropriate
PLEASE FORWARD THIS ARTICLE TO THOSE YOU KNOW!
This in-your-face advertising issue requires everyone to remain vigilant - digital billboards mean big bucks for Clear Channel and it is woefully apparent how their lobbyists continuously work OUR political system. Most folks are unaware of CC's obnoxious badgering to get what they want, disregarding citizens' wishes. Digital advertising does not stop with billboards - it has now been approved to be IN SCHOOLS in Tacoma where children cannot escape the barrage of useless ads. Stay informed by viewing www.keepwashingtonbeautiful.org and www.blightfighters.org and send the links to friends, family and coworkers.
Public pressure can and will stop digital billboards!!
Posted Tue, Feb 7, 10:39 a.m. Inappropriate
EXCELLENT ARTICLE MR. SCIGLIANO - YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THIS ISSUE IS KEEPING THE PRESSURE ON OUR POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT. WELL DONE!
Posted Tue, Feb 7, 11:11 a.m. Inappropriate
Nobody would ever believe these kind of obnoxious digital billboards could ever be considered here in scenic Washington State. However never underestimate the billboard industry's lobbying and litigious nature if they don't get their way.
Posted Wed, Feb 8, 7:32 a.m. Inappropriate
An excellent article and frightening news, the House and Senate bills would reverse 50 years of Washington’s hard won protections against the billboard industry’s legal challenges to our communities. Clear Channel is the world’s largest outdoor media company and monopoly owner of this region’s billboards. There are reasons Mitt Romney makes $27 million in his sleep.
Our cities can’t afford for Washington State to let go of its national leadership and laws protecting our highways. This reversal would place our cities and counties in a direct line of fire against this aggressive giant in its land-rush for new territory. When Tacoma banned a transformation to digital billboards, CC was trigger-happy with litigation against their daring to say NO (a $75M claim). This is a well-funded, national roll-out by the industry for digital everywhere. But other places are winning against this visual pollution, energy waste, and safety issues, through public outcry. In just a few years time, Arizona suffered the rapid onslaught of digital billboards ruining their state and has now deemed digital billboards illegal.
Washington is an easy target (as was Oregon) because most of us are asleep, believing we’re protected by our green and sustainable reputation. Or people are cynical in assuming that billboards mean somebody is getting paid. But billboards get a free ride. Our local businesses pay a premium for our environment and services, while billboards are simply parasites under antiquated off-premise sign/land-use codes. They pay no more than a measly sign permit fee (in Seattle approx. $15 mo) for hundreds and now thousands of square feet of our street's use.
We need to tell our WA representatives we don’t want these digital billboards to start here now or ever. Seattle is the next battleground with over 500 billboards downtown. The outdoor industry has been greasing City Hall for years, while draining our coffers with back-door legal costs through enforcement attempts on much smaller, traditional billboards! We all need to wake up quickly and protect our beautiful state and cities, it's our greatest asset.
Posted Thu, Feb 9, 5:27 p.m. Inappropriate
House Transportation Committee chair Judy Clibborn says, “Most of our members from the north drive through Fife and see [the flashing billboards installed on tribal land along I-5]. They don’t want more of those.”
It's great that people can see this example of billboards on steroids. Clearly, when people see these signs in action they won't want them.
That said, lack of tax-base revenue for public essentials will create an in for the outdoor industry, whereby they will offer to give increased fees to the state. Like ads on school buses, the blight will then be justified as paying for education or healthcare.
The outdoor advertising industry is in this for the long haul. Politicians come and go, but are always in need of money. Clear Channel and others are confident in their ability to lobby legislators and eventually find a way in.
I'm opposed to digital billboards regardless of what perceived public good they're linked to. Keep Washington beautiful, or at least don't mess it up!
Posted Fri, Feb 10, 8:07 a.m. Inappropriate
The Senate bill is in the Rules Committee and so this could go to the Senate floor for an immediate vote.
Our Senators have no idea this is really about opening up our state to digital billboard advertising, because they have been sold the "emergency messaging" ruse by very strong lobbying efforts. Efforts playing out across the country before citizen's wise up and say no! They are being lead to believe they would be doing a public good by approving this, not realizing it would open up our state's decades of protections to these much larger, brighter, flashier, dangerous, and ugly digital billboard transformations, one for one on our highways. We don't need to create a state of fear where terrorists, murderers, bank robbers, pedophiles and old cold cases are posted in our physical environment. They think there is no opposition to this bill, but people simply don't know, nor would they believe it could happen.
Please write a note to your Senator, it's easy to do, here's a link:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx
Posted Fri, Feb 10, 2:48 p.m. Inappropriate
I'm pleased that you're continuing to cover this important issue with another great article by Eric Scigliano.
I think the statement in the second paragraph about the 2007 Federal Highway Administration decision saying that billboards that change images every eight seconds do not violate a federal ban on “intermittent” or “flashing” roadside advertising says it all. This and other similarly ridiculous rulings are making it easy for Clear Channel to bamboozle communities and local governments into believing the ridiculous idea that they're providing a public service when they trash the landscape with digital billboards.
The biggest part of the problem here is lax government oversight, with legislators failing to get the full story or irresponsibly rolling over to do the bidding of corporate lobbyists. Clear Channel is doing exactly what it's supposed to do: make as much money as possible by littering the country with their distracting, intrusive and dangerous digital billboards. But our legislators and government officials are not doing what they're supposed to do, which is to preserve and protect the beauty and livability of the public landscape by stopping this kind of visual blight.
It's our job to let them know that we care about this issue.
Citizen Kane
Posted Fri, Feb 10, 6:08 p.m. Inappropriate
Please politicians, don't roll over to these commercial interests. The beauty of our environment is so clearly violated by this technology, with absolutely no benefit to anyone but slimy corporate interests. If you are taking money from Clear Channel lobbyists and supporting blight, your are corrupt, and I'll be campaigning for whomever your are running against.
Design Matters
Posted Wed, Feb 15, 2:48 p.m. Inappropriate
Jane Hague is still in office? I am flabbergasted she is still an elected official and must say what else do you expect from this sort of politician? Do some homework on her.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.