The bright, neon lights of a digital billboard located along southbound Interstate 5 heading into Tacoma urges drivers to visit casinos, eat at restaurants or call your local plumber. While advertisers tout the importance this new technology, others claim it is nothing more than a dangerous nuisance. And after years of council debate and community detest, Tacoma’s great billboard debate is finally coming to an end.

It all started in 1988, when Tacoma City Council made its first move to limit billboards across the city by capping their number and total square footage. Now, 23 years later, the issue is still on the table, but there is a good chance it will not be for long.

Here is a brief rundown on what has happened so far: When the council attempted to adopt even stricter billboards regulations in 1997, Clear Channel Outdoor stepped forward with a lawsuit to protest the council’s new ordinance and its plans to drastically reduce the number of billboards across the city. In exchange for Clear Channel dropping their lawsuit, the council presented a settlement agreement to the company, which the council supported unanimously and Clear Channel agreed to as well. Upon public outcry over the settlement terms, the council put the agreement on hold for further study and handed the billboards quandary over to the Planning Commission, along with passing a citywide moratorium on new applications to construct billboards or to modify existing ones.

Now, Council members David Boe and Marty Campbell have presented another option to the council that calls for maintaining the council’s original 1997 restrictions on billboards and adding an explicit ban on digital billboards. Among its provisions, the Boe/Campbell proposal would give Clear Channel six months to take down billboards that do not comply with the city’s ordinance, and within a year, permits that have been awarded to Clear Channel to put up relocated billboards would expire.

The council is set to address the Boe/Campbell proposal and no doubt other aspects of the billboard debate at its meeting Aug. 9 and might finally reach a conclusion to this ongoing debacle.

In an effort to bring a certain level of clarity to what has become a complicated issue among the council, Clear Channel and local residents, Tacoma Weekly spoke with all sides this week to get their side of the story.

CLEAR CHANNEL’S PROMISE

According to Olivia Lippens, president of Clear Channel Outdoor’s Seattle division, the company remains committed to the settlement that Tacoma City Council agreed to unanimously and presented to Clear Channel Outdoor in August last year. The settlement came out of a lawsuit Clear Channel Outdoor filed against the city of Tacoma in opposition to the proposed 1997 ordinance to reduce billboards across the city.

Among its provisions, the settlement allows Clear Channel to install 10 digital billboards upon the removal of 178 signs and pending relocation permits from the city landscape. The structures removed will be cut down at or below ground level, according to the settlement stipulations.

The settlement also states that if the company is ordered to remove any existing conforming and legally nonconforming signs in the future, “the city will compensate Clear Channel for the fair market value of those interests.”

A statement Lippens released to the press on July 28 states: “Under this settlement agreement, the city of Tacoma acknowledged the vested rights of Clear Channel in all conforming and nonconforming signs and relocation permits. In addition, the city agreed to compensate Clear Channel at fair market value if any billboards are required to be removed in the future.”

Tacoma-based Thomas and Smitch Consulting Group, Inc. is representing Clear Channel Outdoor in this matter. Its founder, Tim Thompson, said Clear Channel is frustrated that the city approached the company about settling the billboard dispute, but is now appearing to backpedal on the agreement.

“Right now, the future is in the city’s hands. No one coerced the city into negotiating and no one coerced them into agreeing, and these agreements are binding,” Thompson said. “There is … significant confusion that … is caused by pretending the agreement doesn’t exist.”

Another point of confusion is in regard to a daily fine of $25 the city would impose on Clear Channel for each sign not in compliance per the city’s 1997 ordinance. This amount has been estimated to be about $33 million by now.

But on Aug. 3, 2007, Pierce County Superior Court issued a tolling agreement that prevents the city from assessing or collecting any fines relating to its 1997 sign code. Clear Channel insists that there is no $33 million in outstanding fines that the city is neglecting to collect from the company.

On May 17, 2011 – less than one year after approving it – the council put the settlement agreement on hold when it passed a citywide moratorium on new applications to construct billboards or to modify existing ones.

During the ensuing hearings on the matter the council held for public input, Thompson said that Clear Channel learned some things, and that the company wants to work with residents.

“We are open to responding to public issues and concerns that were expressed in ways the agreement could be, within reason, improved.

“Everyone is trying to produce an outcome to reduce billboards and blight. I would welcome discussion on how we could reduce the community impact.”

Both the city and Clear Channel have reiterated that the agreement will not bring bright, Las Vegas-style billboards into neighborhoods. The types of digital billboards being proposed for Tacoma are not like those seen on I-5. The ones Clear Channel wants to install in Tacoma have a static image that holds for about eight seconds with no motion, scrolling or other razzle-dazzle that could distract motorists. The city’s settlement clearly states: “Digital billboards may not scroll, flash or feature motion pictures.”

The technology also allows for numerous businesses to have ads on one sign, something impossible with traditional billboards.

“Through the use of technology, you could end up with a lot fewer billboards,” Thompson said. “We should not fear the advancement of technology,” noting that digital billboards are now located in more than 400 cities across the country.

Regarding where Clear Channel’s digital billboards will be placed, they say none will be installed too close to residential or shoreline districts, schools, parks, religious institutions or historic districts.

“Billboards need to be appropriately located and in high traffic areas,” Thompson said.

Lippens agrees. “We want to be responsive to the public and work with the city in the framework of the settlement agreement to determine the most appropriate locations for digital (billboards). Reasonable guidelines have been instituted by over 400 cities and 42 states across the country that currently have digital – responsible regulation on how to best incorporate this new technology is important to everyone.

“Static digital signs are most appropriate in high density, high traffic commercial and industrial areas and will not be built in residential zones. Clear Channel does not currently have, nor has it ever had, an interest in locating digital signs in residential neighborhoods."

THE CITY’S SIDE

More than a decade ago, the city of Tacoma made it clear that unsightly, distracting billboards would no longer be welcome within the city limits. An ordinance passed in 1997 required that the majority of non-compliant billboards must be eliminated within 10 years.

This year – four years post-deadline – the battle between the city and Clear Channel Outdoor continues.

The 1997 decision instituted an amortization program designed to eliminate billboards that were unsightly, too tall, too crowded together or too close to shoreline districts, schools, parks, religious institutions or historic districts. According to the Tacoma Planning Commission’s recommendation letter, last year’s settlement with Clear Channel Outdoor would only reverse these decisions.

Campbell is confident the Planning Commission’s findings serve the best interests of the city and its residents.

“The commission must make its recommendations separately from any settlement agreements,” he said. “They cannot use the terms of a settlement to define code.”

The Planning Commission’s recommendations explicitly ban digital billboards, citing the nearly 350 citizens who spoke out against this form of signage. The commission urges the city to side with the public.

“I fully support the work of the commission,” Campbell said. “We have some very bright, talented individuals who have done their research and been very thoughtful on their approach for the future.”

Campbell and Boe proposed a plan in late July that would follow the planning commission’s recommendations while also strengthening the 1997 decision.

“Our proposal includes clarifying language around code enforcement and dilapidated billboards,” Campbell said. “The goal is to remove all nonconforming billboards in a timely fashion.”

Static billboards in compliance with existing sign codes could remain under the current proposal. Clear Channel would have six months to remove any noncompliant billboards, which could tally up to more than 190 signs.

“The new code carries on with the vision and intent of the 1997 decision in that billboards do not belong in certain parts of our city,” Principal Planner Shirley Schultz said.

“I believe we’ve written a good code for Tacoma,” Campbell said.

According to the Planning Commission’s recommendations, if it is determined that the 10-year amortization period adopted in 1997 does not fully compensate the owners of non-compliant billboards, the council should consider extending the deadline for an additional five to 10 years.

Mayor Marilyn Strickland supports the proposal and noted that it also includes language addressing maintenance issues and blight.

“I want to make sure we are realistically managing the expectations of our residents,” she said.

In spite of Clear Channel’s staunch opposition to the proposed code, any future litigation is unlikely to be successful, according to Shelley Kerslake, an attorney hired to represent the city in this matter. She believes the proposed code will help the city maintain its long-term vision of becoming a more attractive city.

“The city truly believes it is in a strong position with the new code, and that any challenges Clear Channel may mount would be difficult to prevail,” Kerslake said. “The new code is much stronger and clearer as to the city’s position with digital billboards.”

Tacoma City Council is expected to vote on the proposed ordinance during its Aug. 9 meeting.

THE PUBLIC PROTEST

Britton Sukys admits his neighborhood is not the safest place. His condominium sits just off the busy five-point intersection at 6th Avenue and Division Street.

“I see pedestrians almost getting killed there every day,” Sukys said.

In his opinion, there is one thing that can make this intersection more dangerous: the addition of digital billboards.

The intersection is one of 16 possible areas in Tacoma to receive one of 10 new digital billboards under a proposed agreement with the city and Clear Channel Outdoor. The agreement sparked controversy and concern from citizens who argue digital billboards will distract from the city’s skyline and pose a dangerous distraction to drivers.

“This intersection is dangerous enough without that added distraction,” Sukys said. “It’s completely outrageous.”

The battle against digital billboards caught the attention of residents across Tacoma. Citizens have come in droves to council meetings for the past several months to voice their concerns.

Tricia DeOme, chair of the Central Neighborhood Council, has lived near South 13th and Washington streets since 2007. She said the agreement would put at least five new digital billboards in her neighborhood.

“I just thought, ‘this is horrible,’” DeOme said. For the last year, DeOme and her fellow neighborhood council members gave public comment during city council meetings and began researching the merits of digital billboards.

DeOme is concerned digital billboards could cause an unsafe distraction for drivers, unattractive light output for nearby homeowners, and take away from Tacoma’s natural beauty.

“We have great architecture and skylines,” DeOme said. “To put digital billboards in the middle of that is not right.”

Sukys said his three biggest concerns are declining property value and livability, driver safety, and a local government that seemingly created an agreement with Clear Channel behind closed doors.

“It just seemed like the city wasn’t very open with the citizens when they drafted the first proposals,” he said. “That’s not how a city or democracy is supposed to function.”

Sukys also pointed to a high number of national advertisers compared to local advertisers utilizing billboards as cause for concern.

“We have to pay attention,” Sukys said. “This is the tip of the iceberg. It’s really about paying attention to our skyline. This issue brought people together from across the spectrum. Suddenly we started opening our eyes.”

A COST-EFFECTIVE WAY TO ADVERTISE

While the opposition to billboards in Tacoma has been more than vocal, opinion on billboards as advertising tools is not all bad.

According to DeOme, who compiled an assessment of Tacoma billboards in late June, 11.11 percent of total advertising space is used for small or medium sized businesses that are based in or have an office in Tacoma.

Digital or otherwise, several local businesses see the value of posting their message on a high-rise sign.

Non-profit groups such as Communities in Schools, Cascade Regional Blood Services, United Way and Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium regularly advertise their causes and events, and see the large signage as an affordable and effective way to promote their organizations.

“We have a limited marketing budget and have used billboards as a part of our program the last few years,” said Cari Dixon, assistant director of donor resources for Cascade Regional Blood Services. “They offer good exposure within the communities we serve, and help us spread the message that donating blood is important and always needed.”

Teresa Maxwell, executive director for Communities In Schools of Tacoma, said nationwide Communities in Schools and Clear Channel have had a positive relationship, and regularly uses traditional billboard advertising to help solicit volunteers for programming efforts.

She sees digital billboards as an unavoidable wave of the future, and an even more cost-effective way for small businesses to advertise.

“They’re less costly – talk about good for non-profits,” she said. “There’s not the added expense of printing, and having someone go up and post it.”

“Digital signs are here to stay, whether or not it be in Tacoma… it is the signs of the times I guess.”

In addition to traditional advertisements, Clear Channel promotes the value of digital billboards as being easy to change and update, making for a useful tool to deliver timely information.

Groups such as Crime Stoppers and law enforcement agencies view electronic billboards as a valuable venue for quickly spreading information to a large geographical area. Myrle Carner from Crime Stoppers of Puget Sound said Clear Channel provides free space on digital billboards for Amber Alerts, wanted criminals and information on stolen cars.

“This is a whole new dimension in solving crimes,” he said during a Tacoma City Council meeting on July 21. “It is imperative to helping law enforcement.

WHAT’S NEXT

Tacoma City Council is scheduled to vote Aug. 9 on whether or not to accept Campbell and Boe’s proposal, or to stick with the existing 1997 settlement agreement with Clear Channel.

One direction could lead the city down a long road of litigation as Clear Channel fights to protect the agreement, and the other could keep the city’s interest in the hands of the advertising giant.

There is no clear direction on how and when either option will unfold exactly. Either way, the face of Tacoma’s billboard landscape will ultimately begin to change, as both options call for removal of large, obtrusive or blighted signage.

 

• 
• 
•