Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - January 21, 1987 (100)TO: James B. Schroeder Director Czmmmity Development Department DATE: January 26, 1987 FROM: Alice M. Reimche City Clerk SUBJBCT: Letter Regarding the Passage of Legislation to Reform the Nation's highway Beautification Program and Control the Proliferation of Billboards Attached hereto is a copy of a letter from Victoria S3reenfield, Office of Legislative Affairs, National Wildlife Federation, Washington D. C. regarding the passage of legislation to reform the nation's highway beautification program and control the proliferation of billboards which was presented to the Lodi City Council at its Regular Meeting of January 21, 1987. Following discussion, Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. ALICE M. REINCHE City Clerk rnk 'or ,h,. '`nature O! T, morrow NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERAT10N 1,12, �L enth:ree"., `.\','. \'. �cf ink tUn. L1. C. 'hi, 202 -G7 f�fiUt, January 7, 1987 ?fir. Rx Stein City Attorney City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street Lodi, Cr 95240 Dear Mr. Stein: The National Wildlife Federation is working with a broad-based national coalition, including the National League of Cities, for the passage of legislation to reform the natio::' highw&y beautification program and control the proliferation of billboards. This bipartisan coalition of U.S. Senators and Representatives, state and local elected officials, national organizations, and private citizens urgently needs your e,;perience and support as we prepare for action on this issue early in the 100th Session of Congress. Why are these reforms neede3? Because the current federal law pre-empts local land use controls or, billboards and benefits the billboard industry at the expense of local governments. Over the past twenty years, taxpayers have paid the billboard industry over $200 million to take down old billboards which were promptly replaced by a greater number of new billboards. The U.S. General Accounting Office reports that for every single billboard taken down, five go up in its place. Over 320,000 new billboards have gone up since the 1965 Highway Beautification Act was passed the very act that was intended to curtail roadside visual pollution. Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole and FHWA Administrator Raymond Barnhart call the current highway beautification program "unworkable and in great need of reform". The program's fiscal, legal, and programma;.ic shortcomings have been well documented by the General Accounting Office Department of Transportation Inspector General. Among them: • Current law promotes the annual erection of thousands of new billboards along federal roads and provides perpetual federal cash payments to the billboard industry. It does this by paying (courtesy of the taxpayer) the industry to take down billboards along one segment of highway and allowing more to be erected elsewhere. • Current law pre-empts- traditional state and local land use controls by forcing states and localities to pay cash for billboard removal even though state courts have approved removal of billboards under local land use laws. s Current law Sys the billboard industry to stop polluting -- a special treatment of billboard companies not enjoyed by any other industry or non -conforming land use. So far the federal government has paid the billboard industry over $200 million. and current law requires another $1 billion to be paid to the industry from the public Treasury for removal of signs which are no longer. legal. • Current law allows billboard companies to destroy trees on publicly -owned rights-of-way so that rivately-owned billboards become more visible! Because of your experience and efforts to improve and retain the scenic and visual amenities of your own communities, we are asking your support for reforms to the highway Beautification Act which would: • Prevent the construction of new billboards on federal interstate or primary highways. • Return control over removal of existing billboards to states and localities unless otherwise stipulated by state law. Localities should be able to remove billboards using their constitutionally -approved zoning powers. • Repeal the unnecessary and wasteful federal requirement of cash payments for billboard removals. This would eliminate a $1 billion obligation on the federal Treasury. • Prohibit the destruction of trees and vegetation on federal highway rights-of-way by billboard companies for the sole purpose of making billboards more visible. Last year, despite an all-out effort by the powerful billboard industry to derail reform efforts, the Senate unanimously passed strong legislation which would have put the Highway Beautification Act back on tract. The legislation, although defeated in the eleventh hour of Congressional debate, served to put the billboard industry on notice. Please help us send a clear message to the 100th Congress that the billboard industry's "free ride" is over. We ask that you review the enclosed materials and • write to -your Congressional delegation urging them to support long -overdue reforms; • publicize the issue of billboard reform in newsletters, action alerts, etc., to constituents, colleagues or organization members; w pass a resolution or policy statement in support of better billboard control law and the return of basic land use and zoning rights to state and local goverr2ents. We appreciate your assistance. We look forward to talking to you in the next several creeks. Sincere victor iavreenfield Office of Legislative Affairs NATIONAL �ti�[LDL(FE FEDERATION 1412 sixteenth Street. N WWashington. D.C. 20036-2266 1202' 797-680t) The Billboard Industry says that only a small group of vocal extremists favors billboard control. THE ► RUTH iS that the combined membership- rf the national organizations supporting billboard,control is over �Q -QS-Q—O individuals. Over 100 business, professional and conservation organizations have joined Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole and the nct j Accounting Office in advocating tougher state and local controls 2illbo rad . Among these organizations are the National League of Cities, American Institute of Architects, American Lung Association, and the American Farmland Trust. Four states and more than 500 ciTies.counties, and municipalities have billboard bans and/or restrictions in their communities. Since 1985, over 150 major American newspapers have editorialized against billboards. The Billboard Industry says that motorists could not find gas, goods, and lodging without bill boards. THE TRUTH IS that 85% of ail billboards advertise products that have nothing to do with roadside services. The States of Vermont, Virginia, and New York use alternative information signs that convey directions without obstructing scenery. These signs are less costly than billboard rentals, allowing more small businesses to advertise. THE TRUTH iS that the States of Oregon, Vermont, and Maine banned highway billboards in order to attract tourists and protect their tourist industries. Palm _$p ring Lake Tahoe. Santa Fe. I 4ilton Head. Scottsdale, Williamsburg Raton, Martha's Vin =, and other premier American vacation resorts have all banned billboards. The Lancaster County, Pennsylvania Tourist Bureau is leading an effort to clean up billboards. Hawaii bann billboards, in 1926; tourism is now the state's number one industry. In 1986, Hawaii welcomed the 5 millionth visitor to t'le islands. The Billboard Industry says that when a community restricts billboards, its economy is hurt. THE TRUTH iS that America's fastest cirowingg& -- Austin, Texas -- and America's fastest qmw:ing state -- Alaska -- both banned billboards. The three American cities voted most conducive to business, best to retire to, and most attractive for their size -- San Diego, Seattle, and Portland -- have all banned new billboards and enacted tough on -premise sign controls. The business communities ( often including Chambers of Commerce) in Houston, Philadelphia, Miami, and Mobile are leading the campaigns for billboard control in those cities. Montgomery County, Maryland; Fairfax County, Virginia; Boulder, Colorado; Raleigh, North Carolina; and Marin County, California all combine atLiU aign_ controls with rapidly growing, healthy economies. The Billboard Industry says that they have a right to cash payments for the removal of their non -conforming signs. THE TRUTH IS that the 5th Amendment requires payment of "just compensation" only when private property is taken for public use. Courts have Tong held thatill rrpoulation d= D(;� MiQlata IbI Con stitutiQn, since regulation by state and local zoning authorities does not entail a confisca ion Q grivatQ 12roperty. In spite of this, the Highway Beautification Arc r uir a cash payments to the Billboard Industry for sign removal. Althoe.gh cash compensation is no constitutionally r ire , many state courts have concluded that amortization ( a "grace period" during which non -conforming biliboards continue to generate revenue prior to their relocation ) is an acceptable alternative for the regulation of billboards. The cash paymen requirement has already cost taxpayers over 200 million dollars since 1965. The payment obligation has also effectively stymied state and local efforts L4 hove non -conforming ill rd$. In FY 1985, states could only afford to pay the Billboard Industry to remove 623 billboards gjA Q1 fte, 124,000i i I fqr removal. According to the G.A.O. , "Accomplishing the goal of the Highway Beautification Act wi!I require either additional federal funding or a change in the compensation requirement of the Act." It V-"' ,r rhw \' :U'r ni Tmmn"n­ NATIONAL. WILDLIFE FEDERATION D.C. 20336 2160 Beauty and the Blight: The Struggle for Billboard Reform "Billboards are an, act of aggression against the American landscape." William F. Buckley Twenty-two years ago Congress passed legislation establishing a national policy and program for the control of outdoor advertising along federally funded interstate and primary highways. The la a was the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. In it Congress finds and declares that: The erection and maintenance of outdoor advertising signs, displays, and devices in areas adjacent to the Interstate System and the primary system should be controlled in order toprotect the public investment in such highways, to promote the safety and recreational value of public tra e , and to preserve natural beauty. Under the Act, states are required to develop and administer billboard control programs consistent with the national policy. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to withhold 10% of the annual federal -aid highway funds from states without an effective sign control program. Each state now administers such a program, although 'effectiveness" varies from state to state. Zn addition State and local governments may, if they choose, set standards that are stricter than the national ones. For example, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, Oregon and Alaska have banned billboards entirely. The Department of Transportation, through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), oversees the state programs and the administration of the federal funds appropriated for sign control, but the states themselves are responsible for billboard removal. Since its passage, the Highway Beautification Act has undergone several significant changes. The result is a program at odds with its own stated purpose and intent. Both public JAN 12 1987 ieCisiation, proponents of-.ffecr- .ve Dillboard controls and the current F_d^i:.istration, call the law "unworkable" at best. The Insuector General of the Federalr.�ghway AdmiP.istratiori says that the Act has been steadily "transformed into a sign -industry -dominated program that is actually enric."ling and subsidizing the industry it was to recuiate."l until recently efforts by private individuals, national organizations, and members of Congress to get the program "back on track" have been overpowered by the billboard industry. However, sc---vera' recent studies by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the General :,ccounting O€€ice, and independent researchers confirm the analyses of critics. A 1994 Department of Transportation study of the proara;;i in Florida and Alabama concludes that the program "has not significantly improved the aesthetic quality or the recreational value of the region's prinary a.zd interstate highways" because "liberal implementing regulations" allowed a large numDer of new signs to be erected, while few had been removed.-' Likewise the General Accounting Otcice found that in 1933 five new billboards were erected for each one that was removed under the provisions of the Act (Figure 1). The Coalition for Scenic Beauty, a national organization based in Washington, D.C., reports that thousands of new billboards are being erected at an unprecedented rate and that despite the objectives embodied in the Highway Beautification Act, there are 14 billboards for every 10 Tiles of highway in the U.S. The Cash Payment Issue, Loopholes and Ocher Problems The inclusion of certain provisions in the Highway Beautification Act and importantly, the omission of others, has made effective billboard control difficult from the start. For example, the '65 Act only regulates billboards within 660 feet of the highway. Thiss permitted giant billboards to be erected beyond that limit. These became known as "jumbos" because they were so much larger than billboards erected prior to 1965. In addition, the 165 Act also exempted from billboard control all "commercial and industrial" areas which would be bisected by the Interstate and primary federal highway system. This permitted the construction of new billboards in any area zoned for commercial or industrial use or in any area considered commercial or industrial regardless of zoning. In practice, this has meant that billboards could be erected virtually everywhere. For example, many rural counties have designated narrow strips along the entire length of the Interstate Highway System as industrial or commercial zones, thus permitting billboards in areas otherwise totally rural in character. Wyoming, for example, zoned all lands outside municipalities and within 660 feet of the highway right -o€ -way as commercial for the sole purpose of allawing billboards. Additional loopholes in the procran allow the destr:;ction of trees and other vegetation on the public rig:.t-OE-wav strictly for t. -e purpose of making billboards more visible -- a practice totally inconsistent with the law's purpose "to preserve natural beauty." Ironically, many of the trees cut down each year were planted under Title 3 of the Highway Beautification Act. Their destruction for this purpose represents a significant waste of both resources and millions Of dollars.4 13,000 1..000 11,000 10, Wo 9,000 8.000 7,000 slow 5,000 . 4,000 3,000 2.000 1.000 Figure 1 Growth of Billboard Pollution (on Federal Interstate and Primary High%-ays) KAT10KWp9. FLONICAb ALABAKAb FY low 1979414 196&1934 a GAO Report CEDS6.'i4..MrY 3, 1985. 'the Outdoor Ad mrdsirq Control Ptogrua Needs to be Reaeaessed.' (tau ftm 45 stats.) b Inspector Gorr L DePa VnMt of T: nTwtzdM Report on Audit of Highw;r Be=r&WWn Pro- gram, FHWA Region 4, Report No. R4.FH-4-i5& Moreover, amii= nCt�ents mandatinQ cash payments for bi1lboar: removal have neutralized the effectiveness of the Act, anc: created a "winHfall ;;rofit" vehicle for t.-,.e Uillboard industry. ;.he Highway Beautification Act required states to remove "non -conforming" and "illegal" signs, and to "restrict the construction and ere^tion of new ones. "Non-conforminc" signs are those erected legally Lefore the law became effective b_,�-. which do not now comply with state and local law. Owners of these signs must be paid for their removal: the federal government pays 75% and the states pay the remaining 25%. "Illegal" signs are those erected or maintained contrary to state law. The Act required that "illegal" signs be removed "expeditiously" and did not require payment of any kind. Initially, Congress was slow to provide fun(ling fcr billboard removal and, in 1968, approved provisio.is allowing "non -conforming" signs to remain unless federal funds were available for compensation. The first federal funds for the program were not provided until 1970. But the most far-reaching of the alterations to the A(�'_ occurred in 1978 when Congress passed industry -backed amendments requiring cash payments in all cases where non -conforming signs are removed -- whether the removal was due to Highway Beautification Act requirements or not. In effect, the amendment said that cash was required for billboards removed because of state and local land use control and zoning law. The result of the 178 Amendment was to increase the cost of billboard control by increasing the number of signs that could not be removed without cash payments (Figure 2). 1,ccording to the Federal Highway Administration, this made an additional 38,000 signs eligible for payment and increased the cost of their removal by another $334 r^:llion in federal funds.5 Since 1965, taxpayers have paid the billboard industry over $200 million to take down old billboards only to have them replaced by more and and larger billboards.b Annual program expenditures, which peaked at $27 million in FY'76, have declined steadily, dropping to $2 million in FY'82. Today the General Accounting office estimates that it would cost $922 million to remove just the remaining non -conforming billboards (figure 2). The Administration has not requested new program funds since FY'82, and the Congress has appropriated no new funds since FY'84. State and Local Efforts Several states, notably Alaska in 1959, Vermont in 1967, Maine in 1969, and Hawaii in 1926, have determined that the natural scenic beauty of the state is a public benefit which overrides the private interests of the billboard industry.7 - J - Figure 2 Cost to Federal Taxpavers to Remove Nonconforming Billboards under the Highwa:.- Beautification Act (in millions) 1,200 Actual E. 1,100 outstanc 1,!300 900 — 800 c Tao J 600 sao I 403 aoa 0,•J� 200-- 100 00--.100 j L 1965' True cost unknow n due to fact that Ac' permits per. petual payments for non• conforming signs and al- Oo.rs new signs to become nonconforming- hence el• leible for payments. 1978a 198513 19910 a G A 0 Report CED -78-3S. March_'; .197S. "Obstacles to Billboard Removal." b GAO Report RCED-S5 3l. Januar, 3.1955. "The Outdoor Advertising Control Program Needs to be Reassessed." C Assumes inflation rat( of Y -c, compounded .-mnually. and expenditure of all federal appropriations through ITY 1955. Also assumes no further feder.zl appropriations are made to remove billboards. Tn d_1 cases, tale battle tO estaol.st of E ecti`'e controls 3-Y these states was hard-won but successful. And in every case, despite predictions by the. billboard industry of dire e,onoimic consequence`', advertising, sales, .property values, tour;s,T,, and ogler economic barometers for these areas are at excellent levels. Hundreds of local communities, including the most affluent and picturesque, have prohibited billboards within their ;iurisdictions, or nave established various controls cver then;. San Diego, Scottsdale, Austin, Little Rock, Boulder, Pal:; Springs, and Houston are among the numerous communities which enforce strict controls or prohibit billboards altogether. Again, however, the battles have been difficult and initially costly, in large part because of the costs and loopholes of current federal law. The Highway Beautification. Act is the first piece of legislation at the federal, state, or local level to mandate payments of cash to billboard companies for billboard removal. These provisions ignore numerous court rulings which consider billboards to be "a private use of the public right -of -w, -_y" and a form of "pollution which should be stopped without payment of cash compensation.»8 Many state and local officials now ..rgue that the '78 Amendment constitutes an unprecedented limitation of local zoning authority and effectively allows the billboard industry to deny state and local governments the traditional right to use police power to remove billboards.9 The Government Accounting office report confirms that the '78 Amendment "has hindered sign removal ... in localities that had planned to remove signs without paying monetary compensation."10 The report further states that in lieu of monetary compensation these localities would have allowed sign owners to retain their signs for a specified period of time in order to recoup their investment. Virtually all state courts considering the issue have held that amortization is a reasonable alternative form of compensation. The Road to Reform Support for billboard reform and the Highway Beautification Act has increased dramatically in the past five years as the problem worsened and the ineffectiveness of the program became more obvious. However, progress toward specific Congressional action has been slow. In part this is due to the time it takes to accurately assess a program after it has been established but, for the most part, there has been a failure to fully appreciate the extent to which the loopholes in the Act could and would be exploited. The billboard industry, through the powerful outdoor Advertising Association, is responsible for the highly c j is :. Ci : S: i.I I CO:`^.�a 1 C! ic._^._.= r_ .r -';z 0vt,.V� ;�a t_".r '_" ye.a t^e .;ill card `ind:tstr: rias paid over 4318,000in nonorari� to „�e:.,;3e_s of Congress. Hor.orar _a is coney whic., ;oes directl y to the personal benefit of me::zers. This is the second richest amount paid by any industry in the U.S. and does not include sizeable campaign contributions or billboard space donated to candidates for Congressional office.11 in addition to blocking reforms, the industry has introduced, and continues to offer, numerous amendments w0ich attempt to remove or reduce restrictions on billboards. Several of, these have been added to the Act and now serve as a protective shield for the industry against cities and towns that want to implement effective controls. Nevertheless, the momentum for billboard reform is stronger than ever. In 1986, the U.S. Senate unanimously approved major reforms in the Highway Beautification Act. The Senate Highway Bill's billboard provisions sought to: • ban construction of new billboards along federal highways; • allow state and local governments the option of using their own zoning authority to take down billboards; • prohibit tree cutting along the public right-of-way in front of billboards; end mandatory federal payments to the billboard industry; • require an annually updated inventory of billboards along federal highways; • end billboard exemptions for warning labels on certain product advertisements. However, unlike the Senate bill, the House Highway Legislation contained provisions weaker in some cases that current law. Negotiations, between the House and Senate Conference committees broke down at the eleventh hour over the issue of cash payments and other unrelated issues. The House held that cash payments should continue to be paid to the billboard industry; the Senate, supported by the Reagan Administration, held that cash payments should not be a requirement. Despite the failure of the legislation, the 1986 Congressional action on oillboard reform was significant for several reasons: first, it was the first time in over two decades that billboard reform legislation even made it out of a Congressional committee; second, the issue emerged as "a contender" despite a full and difficult schedule Racine ::embers of the 99th C-ongress; third, the issue survived as a primaary issue until ti:e very end of the Congressional session and received active debate until the day of adjournment. This occurred despite the effective abilities and vast resources used by the industry against the Senate program; and fourth, the issue received and continues to receive strong support from a broad coalition, including business, public interest groups, environmental organizations, and individual citizens. In audition, the issue has received extensive coverage in the press and in editorial cartoons. Congressional leaders say the issue of billboard reform will be among the first to receive attention as the 100th Congress opens in January. In view of the recent progress and the continued and growing support for the issue, the possibility for meaningful billboard reforms emerging from this Congress are greater than at any time since 1965. Prepared by: National Wildlife Federation 1412 16th St., N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Contact: Victoria Greenfield National Wildlife Federation (202) 637-3730 December 1986 n - a - Nates 1. Charles F. Floyd, AICP, "Requiem,: for the Hic,hway Beautification Act", American Planning Association Joarna1, Autumn 1982, p. 441. 2. "The Outdoor Advertising Program Needs to Be Reassessed", General accounting Office, RCED-85-34, Jan. 3, 1985. 3. "Billboard Pollution in America", Coalition for Scenic Beauty, Washington, D.C., 1984-85, p. 13. 4. Ibid.; p. 19. 5. FHWA, Projected Outdoor Advertising Control Program Cost, 1981. 6. GAO Report , RCED-85-34, Jan. 3, 1985. 7. "Billboard Pollution in America", Coalition for Scenic Beauty, Washington, D.C., 1984, p. 26-27. 8. General Advertising Co., Inc. v. Dept, of Public Works, 289 Mass. 149, 198 N.E. 799, 813 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. 1935) app. dismissed 296 U.S. 542 (1935) and 297 U.S. 725 (1936). Keibro, Inc. v. Myrick, 113 Vt. 64, 30 A.2d 527 (1943); New York State Thruway Authority v. Ashley Motor Court, 179 N.E.2d 566 (New York Court of Appeals, 1961); Modjeskca Sign Studios, Inc. v. Berle, 402 N.Y. S.2d 359, 373 N.E.2d 255 (N.Y. Ct. of Appeals, 1977). 9. For examples of state/local problems see Charles F. Floyd, "Requiem for the Highway Beautification Act", Journal of American Planning Association, Autugn 1982; Bruce Brenner, "Outdoor Advertising Control Under the Highway Beautification Act: A Review of State Statutory and Case Law", Transportation Research Board, Study No. 5A, March 1979; Edward H. Ziegler, Jr., "Local Control of Signs and Billboards: An Analysis of Recent Regulatory Efforts", Zoning and Planning Law Report, Vol. 8, No. 10, Nov. 1985. 10. "The Outdoor Advertising Control Program Needs to Be Reassessed", General Accounting Office, RCED-85-34, Jan. 3, 1985. 11. Figures provided by Common Cause, 1986.