THE TACOMIC


Man the Pumpkin Cannons: DEATH TO CLEAR CHANNEL

The ONLY option is VICTORY
posted Mar 15, 2011
tacoma, tacomic, billboards, clear channel, compromise, surrender, central, no future
Sizes:   web  |  email  |  print

<< >>
This political cartoon has nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by land, air, and space with all our might and with all the strength that Jehovah-One (JHVH-1) can give us: to wage war against a monstrous mono-culture tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalog of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is VICTORY, VICTORY at all costs, VICTORY in spite of all psychic terror, VICTORY, however long and hard the road may be; for without VICTORY, there is no mental survival.  

DID YOU KNOW... 
  • Clear Channel has NEVER EVER signed any agreement to remove billboards? No Signature = No Compromise = No Legal Binding Agreement
  • Whenever any city anywhere stands up to billboard companies in court the city ALWAYS WINS, because the argument that billboard advertising blight is free speech is obscene bullshit. 
  • City Manager Eric Anderson and Ultra-cowardly city lawyers sprang their capitulation agreement on the City Council at the last second telling them how important it was to vote approval of the agreement before the City Council even had a chance to get a second opinion on the whole rotten mess? 
  • Clear Channel Owes Tacoma over 25 Million Dollars in fines for out of compliance billboards through out the city? 
  • Businesses who advertise on billboards would just as happily stab your children in the face with sharpened screw drivers? BOYCOTT THEM IMMEDIATELY ! 
  • DIGITAL BILLBOARDS are energy vampires... notoriously NOT GREEN.  How you can SHIFT into a "GREEN" city with a skyline filled with 24hr flatscreen TEE VEEs the same sq foot size of studio apartments is beyond comprehension. ALL LIES! 




extra credit reading: 
 



by NineInchNachos on 3/15/2011 @ 1:52am
twitter.com/RR_Anderson/status/475372145...

by ChrisTopher on 3/15/2011 @ 2:42am
Psychic terror is just the tip of the iceberg. It's a battle for control over our minds. I can't say that without sounding like a conspiracy nut and I don't care. These things exist. Everyone of us is subject to what I call the 'Human Experement': The battle for control of not only mankind, but of the universe. Everyone wants to rule the world and all that implies.

Peace out!

by The Jinxmedic on 3/15/2011 @ 7:18am
We should make lemons from , er, lemonade, or something...

comics.feedtacoma.com/ocryx/ocryx-digita...

by Mofo from the Hood on 3/15/2011 @ 7:39am
The rich are different from us. They've got money. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

P.S. Chris 7.2: Flip your toon so I.L.K. is facing inward.

by panachronic on 3/15/2011 @ 7:44am
Gotta love that left wing "civility".

by KevinFreitas on 3/15/2011 @ 8:10am
Here's my email to planning@cityoftacoma.org (feel free to copy and send with your own name signed):

To whom at the Planning Commission it may concern:

No digital billboards please! We don't need the ads and we don't need the light polluting our skies and neighborhoods. We already see few enough stars in our night sky don't pander to ClearChannel and squander that and more away from our citizens. Which would you prefer a child to see when they look up at night: The beautiful stars in Orion's belt or a ClearChannel billboard ad?

Tacoma should've stood up and initially fought ClearChannel on their violation of our billboard ordinance. Since this initial crop of digital billboards has yet to be erected please stand up and say no to digital billboards in Tacoma.

Sincerely,

Kevin Freitas

by fredo on 3/15/2011 @ 9:10am
RR, your message is right on. Don't know that I would recommend enlistment of pumpkin cannons, but your heart is in the right place. Your drawing technique is very good. Nice 3-d effect and action suggested by the white areas around the muzzles. And your signature Amazon.com shipping box and gritz and shifty. It's all wonderful. Have a great day sir.

by NineInchNachos on 3/15/2011 @ 9:28am
giant metal rectangles are not subject to human civility or world human rights courts.

by NineInchNachos on 3/15/2011 @ 9:31am
You're either WITH the mortal carbon-based bipeds or you're with the non-entity metal rectangles.

by NineInchNachos on 3/15/2011 @ 9:32am
for posterity:

i.feedtacoma.com/Erik/tacomas-central-ne...

by fredo on 3/15/2011 @ 9:43am
RR just so we're clear here.

You're constantly defending our Mayor, Ms. Strickland and the rest of the council. Yet, aren't these they same people who are recommending the settlement which would bring the digitals to our fair city?

When establishing a battle plan it's useful to know which way the guns are supposed to be pointing.

by NineInchNachos on 3/15/2011 @ 9:49am
Even the most diligent cat herder sometimes loses her flock... I do not judge them for they know not WTF they do.

To any human business owner receiving this message remember a clear channel alternative...

Bus Wraps = Community Hugs.

by The Jinxmedic on 3/15/2011 @ 10:02am
"Even the most diligent cat herder sometimes loses her flock... I do not judge them for they know not WTF they do."

And that is exactly the problem... Well said, sir!


by NineInchNachos on 3/15/2011 @ 10:05am
MEANWHILE - R. Crumb on living in France:
"When I go back to America, after a few days I am once again filled with this kind of angry alienation and disgust with this thing there that America has got – you have no idea how pervasive it is there. The public relations and propaganda put out by the corporate mono-culture there is so pervasive. When I’m over here, I look at America and think,‘Why are people not more angry about what’s going on? Why are the people not more up in arms?’ I mean the banks and all that stuff? Good God. How can they stand it?"

herocomplex.latimes.com/2010/11/10/r-cru...

by ChrisTopher on 3/15/2011 @ 10:06am
Mofo, I turned my Avatar around. It only looked like that because it worked better at another blog with a different asthetic.

As for yours, I think it would look good either way.

by fredo on 3/15/2011 @ 10:17am
RR, I understand that you wish to focus on Clear Channel as the enemy here. Unfortunately the problem really isn't Clear Channel but the Mayor who refuses to abide by public sentiment. I've read many blogs about the proposed Clear Channel settlement. There's almost zero support in the community for the proposal. Just as in the past the Mayor is marching to her own drummer. Isn't it time to expose Ms. Strickland for what she is...a fraud? She is not representing the citizenry. Why don't you draw a cartoon which exposes the reality of the situation? It's OK to draw a picture of the Mayor she's not the prophet Mohamed.

by NineInchNachos on 3/15/2011 @ 10:35am
We both know the Mayor is a symbolic position. I don't pretend to understand your laser focus on this poor woman... no this is the Handiwork of our friend Eric Anderson the true driving force of the Tacoma City Council.

when Eric Anderson says 'jump and Clear Channel Outdoor will stop suing us,' the Council asks "How High?"

by NineInchNachos on 3/15/2011 @ 10:46am
let us face it. The Tacoma City Council is scared shitless of Eric Anderson's legal-speak. What the City Council needs is a young plucky Lawyer type who can see through the smoke screen at the big picture. We need ANDERS IBSEN!


by fredo on 3/15/2011 @ 10:56am
The Mayoral position IS symbolic...just like the billboard which proclaims "constitutions matter."

She recently called a State of the City press conference. I don't remember anyone complaining that her position was merely "symbolic" then. How quickly we forget.

Let's remember that Eric Anderson serves at the will of the council. He could be fired at next Tuesday's council meeting if the council disappoves of his performance.

The Mayor has one tool at her disposal that no other person in Tacoma has. It's called the Bully Pulpit. She has the power to use the Bully Pulpit to do great good in our city. For example she could call a press conference for tomorrow and announce that she no longer supports the Clear Channel settlement, that she wants the existing boards removed and fines to be paid. In doing so she would actually be representing the will of the citizens. She's announced that she has considerable leadership abilities...so why isn't she using them to lead our city? Sorry if I'm focused on her continual failure to lead our city but she did run for the Mayoral position. It's her job to LEAD!

by cisserosmiley on 3/15/2011 @ 11:18am
you guys can't expect any movement from fake politicians...city council socks are just "playing at government" the way 4 year olds play t-ball - they are just playin, not really governing. Fredo, RR is right, stop hassling this poor woman, she may not even know what a bully pulpit is. if you want this done do it ourselves
www.ci.tacoma.wa.us/cityclerk/files/City...
section 2.19

by NineInchNachos on 3/15/2011 @ 11:25am
also the same technology that allows law enforcement to broadcast blanket amber alerts across these digital billboards can be easily hacked by naughty people would use it to broadcast pornography because they think it is funny. Do we really want that?


by The Jinxmedic on 3/15/2011 @ 11:36am


The possibilities are indeed intriguing...

by panachronic on 3/15/2011 @ 12:13pm
Had to snicker at this one...

"Businesses who advertise on billboards would just as happily stab your children in the face with sharpened screw drivers? BOYCOTT THEM IMMEDIATELY !"

Now, I wanna know... how many FT lefties are really gonna boycott Sound Transit?

by Erik on 3/15/2011 @ 12:13pm
Here is the legal analysis of Doug Schafer a board member of central neighborhood.

He is the only one who has looked at the federal lawsuit action:

www.cnc-tacoma.com/images/documents/bill...

and

www.cnc-tacoma.com/images/documents/bill...

by NineInchNachos on 3/15/2011 @ 12:19pm
I have been boycotting sound transit for the past 3 months.

I had the pleasure of listening to Doug Schafer at the Planning Commission Q&A. He is one cantankerous old goat and i'm glad to have him on our side.

by NineInchNachos on 3/15/2011 @ 12:34pm
-------- Original Message -------
Subject: Re: Please add me to your Historic Tacoma email list.
Date:Mon, 07 Mar 2011 13:59:35 -0800
From:Doug Schafer
To Sharon Winters:

Thank you. I am also appalled by the City's proposed actions. I am a lawyer, but I lack land use and zoning
experience. Nonetheless, I reviewed the court files from the Clear Channel lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by
Clear Channel in Pierce County Superior Court in late July 2007. The City apparently hired former City legal
department staff attorney Shelley Kerslake to represent it. Ms. Kirslake immediately filed papers to move the
lawsuit to Federal District Court (I wonder why.). In August, 2007, the City filed an answer to Clear
Channel's complaint that generally denied CC's factual and legal assertions. From that time until
mid-February 2010, nothing was filed in the case except stipulated extensions of the trial date (except for a
stipulated dismissal from the lawsuit of a City employee that CC had named). It appears that the City chose to
negotiate a settlement rather than to defend the City Council's 1997 ordinance. On February 10, 2010, Clear
Channel filed a motion for summary judgment. The City never filed any response to that motion, but the
Settlement Agreement that I fetched from the City Clerk's office last week shows that its Exhibit 4 (Agreement
to Dismiss Lawsuit) was dated March ___, 2010. So by sometime in March 2010, the City had essentially
acquiesed to Clear Channel's demands. The federal lawsuit was dismissed by stipulation of the parties on
October 13, 2010, but it could be re-filed if the settlement falls through.

I believe that the City's litigation posture should have been to defend the 1997 ordinance. The foundation of
nearly all of Clear Channel's arguments was that the 1997 ordinance only categorized as "nonconforming"
those billboards that on July 22, 1997, were displaying a message advertising goods, products, events, or
services not sold on the premises. Clear Channel makes First Amentment arguments premised on its
assumption (since allegedly no records exist) that some of its billboards were displaying noncommercial
messages, or were without a message, on July 22, 1997. In my view, the City should have sought a ruling
early on rejecting that argument, or a ruling that Clear Channel's lawsuit challenging the 1997 ordinance was
barred by the short limitations period for challenges under the state's Land Use Petition Act.

Given the significance of the issues in the lawsuit, it surprises me that the City did not hire a more prominent
(and probably more capable) lawfirm to defend the City's 1997 ordinance, or at least to seek a second opinion
for such a lawfirm before "rolling over."

It is my view that the City could renounce the proposed Settlement Agreement and return to court to defend its
1997 ordinance. The proposed Settlement Agreement signed in late July 2010 by the City's manager, clerk,
and attorney, gave Clear Channel on "option period" of six months to sign it. Clear Channel never did. In late
January 2011, without City Council authorization, the City's manager, clerk, and attorney signed a First
Amendment to the Settlement Agreement extending until August 15, 2011, the deadline for Clear Channel to
sign the proposed Settlement Agreement. Arguably, the First Amendment is invalid since the City Council did
not authorize it. But irregardless, I consider the proposed Settlement Agreement nothing more that the City's
offer that it can revoke at will, since its paragraph 7 states, "Clear Channel's option to execute this Agreement,
or to leave the Agreement unexecuted, shall be within Clear Channel's sole discretion. Nothing herein shall be
interpreted to require Clear Channel to execute the Agreement."

I attach a copy of Clear Channel's motion for summary judgment and a copy of the proposed Settlement
Agreement and its First Amendment. If you'd like any more of the papers from the litigation, please let me
know.

Doug Schafer

P.S., The City's planning department (planner Shirley Schultz) has been working from a copy of the proposed
Settlement Agreement that was distributed to attendees at the City Council meeting on July 27, 2010, when

the Council approved that Agreement. But its Exhibit 2, listing billboards initially to be removed, differs
significantly from the Exhibit 2 that was attached to the original proposed Settlement Agreement on file at the
City Clerk's office.



------- Original Message -------
Subject: Re: electronic billboards
Date:Tue, 08 Mar 2011 11:06:56 -0800
From:Doug Schafer
To Sharon Winters:

My first impression upon reading Clear Channel's motion for summary judgment was the same as yours.
However, upon further consideration and review of the Code provisions as they existed in 1997-98, I came to
the view that CC's interpretation of the Code provisions was deeply flawed. The City attorneys should have
sought a court ruling early on as to whether CC's interpretation was required by the Code provisions.
Attached is a copy of the Tacoma Sign Code as it existed early in 1998, and a copy of the 1997 ordinance.
Commonly employed judicial rules of statutory (and ordinance) interpretation could be employed by a willing
judge. Those rules permit laws to be interpreted in ways that resolve ambiguities and that implement a
law-making body's plain intentions.

The defined phrase "Billboard sign" in TMC 13.06.550.C.5 (1997) was not generally used in the 1997
ordinance that amended only TMC 13.06.551. A literal interpretation of "Billboard sign" as defined in
.550.C.5 in 1993 or earlier (defined as an off-premises sign) is inconsistent with the use of that phrase in
TMC 13.06.551.N.11 (added in 1997) that refers to on-premises "billboard signs." Inconsistencies and
ambiguities in written laws require interpretation. TMC 13.06.551.B (in place before 1997) provided for
interpretation of ambuities by Tacoma's Land Use Administrator. It appears Clear Channel never sought its
"administrative remedy" (normally required by courts before judicial review) of an interpretation by the Land
Use Administrator. Courts generally defer to reasonable interpretations of written laws by officials designated
in those laws to administratively interpret them.

A separate basis upon which I believe the City should have defended the 1997 ordinance was a statute of
limitations defense. The state's Land Use Petition Act (LUPA, RCW Ch. 36.70C) requires a challenge within
21 days of a "land use decision" meaning a “final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with
the highest level of authority to make the determination.” That final determination in the case of Tacoma's
billboard ordinance was in 1997. In 2002, Federal Way failed in its assertion of the LUPA statute of
limitations defense to its billboard ban because its ban was enacted before LUPA became effective and
because the wording of its ban granted its officials discretion to make a "final determination" well after the
ban took effect. Tacoma's 1997 ordinance appears not to suffer from the features that cause the court to
reject Federal Way's LUPA limitations period defense. Attached is a copy of the 2002 Federal Was court
ruling.

Doug Schafer


-------- Original Message -------

Subject: electronic billboards
Date:Tue, 08 Mar 2011 11:41:37 -0800
From:Doug Schafer
To Sharon Winters:

I should have added to my last message that -


1. Because the 1997 ordinance generally used the word "billboard" rather than the previously defined phrase

"Billboard sign," it can be argued that the 1997 lawmakers intended "billboard" in the 1997 ordinance to be
given its ordinary dictionary meaning.

2. In the definitions at TMC 13.06.550 from 1993 (publication of the public library's TMC Volume II, pages
13-131 through 13-133) or earlier, the definition of "Billboard sign" includes "A sign which advertises goods,
products, events, or services...." The definition of "Sign" includes "Any object, device, display, structure or
part thereof which is used to advertise ... a product, business...." I believe that the code's definition of
"Billboard sign" could be interpreted consistent with its definition of "Sign" as meaning a sign "which is used
to advertise" goods, products, events, or services. With that interpretation, the classification of a sign as a
billboard sign turns on whether it has been used, or sometimes is or was used, to advertise goods, products,
events, or services. Not on whether it was blank on July 22, 1997, or was displaying a non-commercial
message on that date.

By the way, sometime after 1998, the sign code was recodified from TMC 13.06.550 to .552 to TMC

13.06.520 to .522.

Doug Schafer


by NineInchNachos on 3/15/2011 @ 12:37pm
-------- Original Message -------

Subject: Re: electronic billboards
Date:Tue, 08 Mar 2011 20:04:58 -0800
From:Doug Schafer
To:Sharon Winters

Sharon, it occurred to me after the meeting this afternoon that Clear Channel likely has no intention of signing
the proposed Settlement Agreement until after Tacoma has adopted a sign code that satisfies Clear Channel's
specifications. That's why the proposed Settlement Agreement has nothing at all specific about the size or
locations of its first ten digital billboards. The proposed Settlement Agreement simply has dots on a map for
the locations, but City Planner Shirley Schultz told me that it was Clear Channel that gave her the very specific
language for the "special receiving areas" to put into the ordinance. And the proposed Settlement Agreement
says nothing at all about the size of the first ten digital billboards (that arguably could display two or more
faces each), but an unwritten understanding likely exists between Clear Channel and City officials that CC will
erect ten digital faces that each may be 14 ft. by 48 ft. (672 sq. ft.). Again, none of this is in the proposed
Settlement Agreement.

The proposed Settlement Agreement gives CC a six-month "option period" within which to sign it, but if the
City had adopted a new billboard ordinance within that option period, CC would have had to sign the
proposed Settlement Agreement within 30 days after the effective date of the new ordinance. The First
Amendment (if valid) is consistent with what likely is the unwritten agreement between City and CC officials
that the latter will not sign the proposed Settlement Agreement unless the City enacts a billboard ordinance
consistent with Clear Channel's unwritten specifications (e.g., ten 674 sq. ft. digital billboards where CC
wants them) between City and CC officials-- giving Clear Channel just what it wants! If Clear Channel's
specifications for the billboard ordinance were detailed in the Settlement Agreement, that agreement would be
more likely to be ruled invalid by a court as unlawful "contract zoning" or a similar improper delegation.

If the City does not adopt Clear Channel's desired ordinance, then both parties will return to court and,
hopefully, the City's attorneys will actually defend its 1997 billboard ordinance the second time around.

At any rate, we need not fear that our public objections to the proposed electronic billboards will motivate
Clear Channel to hastily sign the proposed Settlement Agreement. It will simply sit back until its specified
ordinance is either adopted or rejected, then will either erect its billboards or return to court.

Doug Schafer

by NineInchNachos on 3/15/2011 @ 12:39pm
tHEY LIVE, WE SLEEP...
WE WILL FIGHT THEM WITH CARTOONS, WE WILL FIGHT THEM WITH PUPPETS, WE WILL FIGHT THEM WITH ANGRY BLOG POSTS.. WE WILL NEVER GIVE UP. WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER!

by cisserosmiley on 3/15/2011 @ 12:47pm
peoples' initiatives: pi#1)restricting the operation of signs over a maximum square footage. PI#2)restricting the use of billboard signs in mix use zones. pi#3)implacing a use tax on large signs comparable to their impact on community, view, and property values. pi#4)require billboards to be attached to a business engaged in a similar operation as the billboard advertises.
any of these would only need 8,000 signatures to be on the ballot and would be a great city council election year issue to gauge your council votes with.

by NineInchNachos on 3/15/2011 @ 1:03pm
Yes! Where do I sign?

by fredo on 3/15/2011 @ 2:29pm
I'm looking at a Clear Channel billboard right now.

The advertiser is Tacoma Utility Click Network.

How can the city condemn the continued use of billboards in our city AND continue subscribing to the service at the same time?

You know, there's something funny going on here. I don't mean ha ha funny.

by cisserosmiley on 3/15/2011 @ 3:19pm
this city runs on biz tax...electronic billboards bill at a multiple of static boards because the messages are frequently taylored to times, traffic flow, etc. ...the end result is anyone in city gov knows without this revenue WE are sunk. it is the same reason they drum beat for downtown even though WE all live in uptown in regular neighborhoods. without bloated dt taxes payin for stuff all over the city tacoma would be very different...

by NineInchNachos on 3/15/2011 @ 4:52pm
If something isn't done about CLEAR CHANNEL monopoly I fear another citizen uprising trunc.it/ffj9d

by L.S.Erhardt on 3/15/2011 @ 7:11pm
What if all the 8 year-olds in town were given BB guns?

Yes, there would be a rash of dead squirrels and shot-out windows, but those billboards would be rendered inoperable within hours.

by cisserosmiley on 3/15/2011 @ 10:20pm
if you can not come to the public hearing on the 16th you can submit written comments to:
planning@cityoftacoma.org -or-
planning commission
747 market street-rm. 108
tacoma, wa. 98402

by NineInchNachos on 3/16/2011 @ 2:40am
exit 133 has posted!

www.exit133.com/6186/billboard-code-revi...

interesting comment from Jack Chamberlin:

"These hideously ugly, buzzing, glowing, electro-magnetic spewing monstrosities will completely un-do the years of historic preservation so many have worked for in our neighborhoods.

If the over-sized electronic billboard goes up at South Tacoma Way and 56th, then I give up and will leave Tacoma since that will be proof to me this no longer a liveable city for residents; if you live in Tacoma your only value is simply as an advertising opportunity for corporations.

Thanks for nothing, City Council, I’ll move to a town that votes in the best interest of residents instead of out-of-town companies. This city is now owned by Clear Channel and GEO Group."

by captiveyak on 3/16/2011 @ 8:06am
Municipal codes are written to increase the benefits, beautification, preservation, edification and protection of municipal values and culture. These proposed revisions might be the first time a code is re-written to decrease those actions. And this might be the first time a code is re-written for the benefit of one out-of-town, out-of-state business, to the arguable detriment of the inhabitants of the City.

by fredo on 3/16/2011 @ 8:16am
right yak. the settlement has been carefully written, not by the city of tacoma but rather by Clear Channel, to be as beneficial as possible to Clear Channel. Under the settlement the only companies allowed to place the new digital billboards are companies which agree to remove other billboards. Well guess what? The only company with billboards to take down (albeit illegal billboards) is the Clear Channel. And magically, the Clear Channel Company is granted a monopoly over all outdoor advertising in the city of Tacoma for now and for all eternity.

If we are going to have outdoor advertising from this point onward (and I'm not suggesting that we should) then it should be handled through local companies and local people and property owners should have an equitable opportunity to participate.

by NineInchNachos on 3/16/2011 @ 9:06am
PUMPED! PUMPED!

by NineInchNachos on 3/16/2011 @ 11:00am
for posterity... ( don't want to lose any of these comments for Volume II )

i.feedtacoma.com/Erik/how-tacoma-would-b...

by NineInchNachos on 3/16/2011 @ 11:00am
"Hey fredo, I just printed up 200 illegal made up permits to open smoke shops and strip clubs downtown. Want to go into business with me? We could trade these 200 illegal permits for five real ones!!!

OOhhhh... wait... we need to add exclusivity to our deal with the city. We wouldn't want competitors!!!!!" - Jesse

by Jesse on 3/16/2011 @ 11:08am
Fire away!!!! How could you get into trouble harming billboards that "aren't there"...

by NineInchNachos on 3/16/2011 @ 12:54pm
from my facebook....

KEEN clearchannel post by @KCooperTNT trunc.it/fe48u Feel bad for dude getting digital billboard across from his 6th ave house!


- Britton Sukys likes this.




- Crenshaw Sepulveda: He can probably make a few bucks setting up a tanning business in his back yard and save some money by just putting his food out back to microwave.



- Britton Sukys It's my front yard...And no, I cannot run a business on my property. Zoning, I guess.


- Crenshaw Sepulveda Got to love those zoning laws. I guess if you have enough money you can always have the zoning go your way.


- Britton Sukys I do not have enough money...I need the City to defend itself. This is corporate war on the middle class, It's my rights vs their rights now. And it is in the hands of the City of Tacoma.


- Crenshaw Sepulveda A child can see how all of this is so wrong. How is it that our city officials not see this? If Clear Channel gets its way the Mayor, City Council, and City Manager have to go. You are right, we count on our government to protect us from abuses like this. Besides Clear Channel OWES the city $25 Million Dollars!!


- Britton Sukys Plus, I want to point out that this is the first multi-unit dwelling in Tacoma history (12 units) built in 1922. It is a historic structure and easily less than 200' away from the proposed site. We all individually own our homes, too, it's not an apartment. The "Gray Gables" building.

by cisserosmiley on 3/16/2011 @ 1:45pm
there is a billboard across the street from my place on 6th, old n dirty...also, i have to pay $15,000 to shut down 6th ave because i am responsible to replace my sewer line under said ave. i feel the lack of maintenance on 6th ave on this stretch has contributed to the sewer issue. i have been told it is a money issue why 6th ave has not been maintained here(between proctor n stevens). if WE had billboard taxes WE could get 6th avenue fixed, my sewer problem will not be replicated on all of you, and i do not mind the new non-dirty billboard here...in fact it is the beauty of mix used areas'-vibrance. why is it that urban endevourists want population density, public transportation, a grocery store downtown, and no modern billboards ... but complain about crowds at the park, vote NO on pt, won't live downtown, and prefer 10 times the billboards which are dirty and uncool. tacoma could be a model city of ONLY digital billboards - America's most wired city or some other crap?

by NineInchNachos on 3/16/2011 @ 3:48pm
intriguing reply from City Council Position #4 ...



Dear Friendly Neighborhood Cartoonist,

Your artistry, much like Mr. Rahe’s prose, is thought provoking. I, like others on the council, are very interested in the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Due to the legal nature of the issue we may be constrained in the comments we are free to make at this time.

Thank you for your email.
Marty

by NineInchNachos on 3/16/2011 @ 3:52pm
for posterity...

blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2011/03...

cranky old doug schafer says "It's disappointing that editors chose to omit in today's print edition (page A3) the URL (www.cnc-tacoma.com) of the Central Neighborhood Council website where I compiled "copius documents" in opposition to the proposed deal between the City and the billboard company. While that URL is included in the sidebar above, the sidebar in the print edition only included the URL for the City's one-sided website.

Whatever happened to balanced reporting? Why wouldn't the TNT want its readers to access the online "copius documents" that Ms. Cooper noted in her article?"

by fredo on 3/16/2011 @ 4:34pm
No time to waste researching this issue any further.

If you oppose the CC settlement it's imperative that you compose a quick email and send it off to:

planning@cityoftacoma.org

do it now, don't put it off

damn it

by NineInchNachos on 3/16/2011 @ 4:51pm
OR SHOW UP! kevin is live tweeting here:

twitter.com/kevinfreitas


by NineInchNachos on 3/16/2011 @ 9:34pm
quite a fire storm on facebook and twitter right now. you guys are missing out.

by NineInchNachos on 3/16/2011 @ 10:22pm
from my face book....

RR Anderson: Dear Mark Lindquist. Do you have a position on digital billboards? I believe Rob Mckenna in on record for being against spammers.


Mark Lindquist: Follow me on Twitter and find out. I will say that I join Rob McKenna in bipartisan opposition to spammers.

by NineInchNachos on 3/17/2011 @ 12:48am
www.king5.com/news/local/Company-offers-...

by NineInchNachos on 3/17/2011 @ 8:48am
WERE YOU AWARE OF IT?

The solitary man who spoke in favor of giving billboard property owners more of a voice in these dealings was old man Wilhelm Dickson of Wm. Dickson Co. the company Eric Anderson paid to tear apart the historic Luzon Building. The dude has about 6 billboards on his property.

i.feedtacoma.com/Erik/97-percent-tacoman...

www.thenewstribune.com/2011/03/16/158775...

www.exit133.com/6188/notes-from-the-plan...

by fredo on 3/17/2011 @ 9:20am
You should sit down with Bill Dickson sometime RR and listen to him talk about Tacoma. He's like 90 years old and knows more about Tacoma than any 10 people commenting here at feedtacoma. He probably does have some billboards on his property, but he also employs dozens if not hundreds of locals and is one of the few major employers who still believes in Tacoma. In addition to demolishing buildings like the Luzon (2009) and the old county courthouse (1950s) his company installs streets and sewers all over the place.

Regarding his testimony in support of the CC settlement, it's possible he doesn't know the difference between the digital and the traditional billboards. I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

by NineInchNachos on 3/17/2011 @ 9:32am
He did sound like a real sweet guy and I don't think he had any love for digital billboards. I think alot of property owners with clear channel billboards are trapped by scary contracts.

by Mofo from the Hood on 3/17/2011 @ 10:28am
Due to the rate of natural evolution, our ancestors did not have the intellectual capacity to prescribe economic and social conduct for successive generations. Should not we as modern enlightened Tacoman's plan a Clear Channel Reconciliation Park?

by panachronic on 3/17/2011 @ 3:46pm
"It's my rights vs their rights now. And it is in the hands of the City of Tacoma."

You're screwed.

by NineInchNachos on 3/18/2011 @ 11:04am
how thrilling would this be?

www.mesarchitecture.org/double-happiness...


by The Jinxmedic on 3/18/2011 @ 11:17am
Seriously, the digital billboards are a done deal. What next?

The boards could be viewed as an OPPORTUNITY for talented hackers to upload their own "advertisements". After a few months of this, Clear Channel will have no choice but to remove them due to lost revenue.

The boards could then be installed in Seattle to illuminate the MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR tunnel fiasco worksite.

by NineInchNachos on 3/18/2011 @ 11:22am
www.defcon.org/images/defcon-16/dc16-pre...

by Erik on 3/18/2011 @ 1:37pm
Seriously, the digital billboards are a done deal. What next?

It is not a done deal Jinx. Not ever close.

The City of Tacoma has not even put out an offer yet that CC can accept.

Read Schafer's analysis:

www.cnc-tacoma.com/images/documents/bill...

After the Planning Commission deal with the issue, the Tacoma City Council must decide if it wishes to stand by and defend the 1997 billboard law or try to force in electronic billboard in Tacoma.

by NineInchNachos on 3/18/2011 @ 1:59pm
Tacomic Predicts who will vote in FAVOR of Clear Channel Billboards:

Strickland - yes
Walker - no
Manthou - yes
Campbell - no
Fey - no
Woodards - yes
Lonergan - yes
Mello - no
Boe - no

by cisserosmiley on 3/18/2011 @ 2:29pm
fey will probably vote yes because he is trying to get his 2012 senate campaign verts on the big billboard teevee

by The Jinxmedic on 3/18/2011 @ 3:22pm
It's a done deal, since the City Manager can overrule anything and everything the council wants, the mayor wants, or the people want. Did we forget the Luzon already?

by NineInchNachos on 3/18/2011 @ 3:52pm
City Manager can override if he can justify his hazard to life/limb. In this case, billboards are a hazard to life/limb...

www.kirotv.com/news/15590216/detail.html

by NineInchNachos on 3/18/2011 @ 4:18pm
exploiting the copy/paste feature from Face book to uncover a nest of Clear Channel supporters....


[weekly volcano owner Tom Swarner]

Tom Swarner: i'm not saying digital is good, i'm saying billboard advertising is good for businesses.

[bjornson says something about garbage on a stick]

Tom Swarner: fine, then cut the trees and limbs that have blanked out the effectiveness of those that exist.

[former council member, Joe Lonergan puppet-master and am radio talk show host Mike Lonergan]

Mike Lonergan:
Just to keep the facts straight: The sign in the Pittsburgh story is SIX TIMES the size of those proposed in Tacoma. Without taking sides in this current matter, can we agree that outdoor advertising has long been part of Americana? Such as Alt Heidelberg's Student Prince, painted barns in the Midwest and South, Burma Shave. Not everyone calls them trash, pollution, litter, junk, blight, and I'm not sure that namecalling is the way to win this argument.

[Anders Ibsen]

Anders Ibsen:
I don't think most of these people are absolutists, Mike. I largely agree with you that some outdoor advertising - when properly regulated - isn't inherently blightful. I think what these people are mostly upset about is Clear Channel thinking it's above the law, and the city caving in to them when they could have simply dug in their hills and defended their own law.

[Ladenburg dynasty]

John W. Ladenburg Sr.:
Two points: First the City and the County were successful in shutting down casinos by a law just like this. They got their time to recoop investments and had to leave. You can and should win this lawsuit and their is little reason to set...tle in my mind. They have had more than 13 years to recover their investment. Second @Mike, why are the great majority of the signs south of 38th street and ALL south of 6th Avenue? Why are they being pushed into our south end and not up Pearl and Orchard and into the Stadium Distirct? Because they think we don't have the neighborhood activists

by Erik on 3/18/2011 @ 5:02pm
@cisserosmiley: I believe RR is right. I predict a Fey no vote, he is a strong neighborhood councilmember who brought the motion for a moratorium on NE Tacoma development issue.

@RR: Yes, interesting exchange. I have not seen one supporter of electronic billboards who was not somehow directly tied to advertising/billboard industry.

It's a done deal, since the City Manager can overrule anything and everything the council wants, the mayor wants, or the people want.

Nada Jinx. Such an important point here. The electric billboards proposed settlement agreement cannot be implemented without a future vote of the city council changing the city code on the issue. The City Manager cannot do this.

by NineInchNachos on 3/18/2011 @ 5:18pm
Yeah, be more Ocryx and less Joe. There is hope! Even the trees are on our side.

Unknown Company's "Break Out of the Norm" Aggressive Urban Blight Campaign

by The Jinxmedic on 3/18/2011 @ 7:45pm
Nah, get used to life on an Indian Reservation. Buy some really good blinds, you are going to need them.

-Joe out.

by cisserosmiley on 3/18/2011 @ 8:52pm
fey's ne tacoma preservation was about preserving a golf course in his back yard, preserving home values in ne tacoma by not building new ones, and preserving his happiness because all his neighbors also wanted a golf course and preserved home values and they would have been mad at him. i am vowing here and now to continue the truth telling, please people do not be distracted by shallow explanations about anything your leaders do. jinx is correct, get used to it.

by NineInchNachos on 3/18/2011 @ 9:22pm
I refudiate!

by jenyum on 3/18/2011 @ 11:28pm
Google map of proposed digital billboard locations, now you should be able to zoom in and use Google Street View to see what the areas are like.

maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnea...

(Sorry about the lousy number icons, I made them ages ago for a different size.)

by NineInchNachos on 3/19/2011 @ 8:23am
good work! Now god is on our side. (google)

by ixia on 3/19/2011 @ 8:38am
Eric: I predict a Fey no vote, he is a strong neighborhood councilmember who brought the motion for a moratorium on NE Tacoma development issue.
I wish we could count on him. He was material in letting the berm be built through the Dome District. Fey has great compassion and empathy for people. When it comes to creating a progressive urban environment, I don’t think he gets it.


by jenyum on 3/19/2011 @ 2:15pm
That board at 6th & Sprague just makes me angrier the more I think about it. How many kids at Jason Lee? 800? How many opportunities to be bombarded with fast food ads in the course of a day? There's no freeway there, and you can easily spend 8 minutes waiting at that light watching the billboard change over and over and over again.

by NineInchNachos on 3/19/2011 @ 7:59pm
yessss. goooood.. feel the outrage flowing through you...

by Mofo from the Hood on 3/20/2011 @ 7:41pm
Very strange to read the opposition to digital billboards by familiar blog writer's which have socially liberal views concerning personal expression in the public sector, and the elevating of science and technology to the status of supreme reality.

Enjoy your Krylon painted murals, and trolley car brainstorming/wine tasting parties, and Saturdays with your hoe at the 'hood community garden. Won't be seeing you at the book fair promoting girl on girl primers for kindergarten classroom distribution. Remember 1885!


by NineInchNachos on 3/20/2011 @ 9:55pm
you're a very weird person mofo.

by Mofo from the Hood on 3/20/2011 @ 11:19pm
I think I understand the issue as somewhat like this: People form coalitions to get their way or to take something away from someone else. If enough people pool their resources (pitchforks, flaming tar torches, shovels) then a disagreement with an opposing party may become a battle of might is right; or with regards to this CC issue, blight is wrong.

What is blight? Billboards are blight, according to some coalitions. This redefinition of billboards is how the coaliton against billboards is basing its legitimacy to impose on my freedom to choose to view billboards.

The so-called progressives in Tacoma are in actuality blatant regressives.

No doubt this Tacomic was intended for the neighborhood community garden pumpkin farmers.



by The Jinxmedic on 3/21/2011 @ 6:35am
Mofo rocks.

by NineInchNachos on 3/21/2011 @ 7:52am
maybe if billboards distributed food to impoverished families more conservatives would be against them.

by NineInchNachos on 3/21/2011 @ 7:57am
anyone who would like to stand up for the rights of a giant trans-national corporation to spam our neighborhoods and increase traffic accidents be my guest. You're either with the constitutions matter mono-omni-message or against it.

by Jesse on 3/21/2011 @ 8:52am
@Mofo: Interesting analysis. However, every story has two sides. Let's say there's two kids on a playground. One is wielding a stick around and sometimes hitting the other kid. The kid with the stick doesn't notice he's hurting anyone but he actually is. The other kid is crying. Should you take the stick away from the kid or claim the kid has "freedom to do what he wants, this is America after all!". Would you call the parent regressive because they're taking a stick away from a kid and therefore his freedom?

The Billboard Coalition is merely attempting to take the stick away. Being Progressive is *mostly* about thinking about what is the best good for all involved and moving those principles forward --- whether that is environmental, social, or whatever... and I'd hardly call that regressive.

by Mofo from the Hood on 3/21/2011 @ 8:58am
The mayor of Tacoma and the city council have publically declared that, "Tacoma is open for business."

What do you expect? It's Marilyn's and the girl's perogative to change their mind and run Clear Channel out of town as if CC were Chinese immigrants?




by fredo on 3/21/2011 @ 9:00am
So a parent who allows their child to carry around a stick and hit people with it are like advertisers who own digital billboards?

The stick hitting has no benefit, however the advertising has a slight benefit. It creates immediate income for some people and provides a post council employment opportunity for our council members.


by Jesse on 3/21/2011 @ 9:20am
Like a wielding stick, the billboards hurt people. There is no question they hurt nearby property owners, the commons, and real estate values.

The law is about balance. There are plenty of instances where *freedoms* are limited because of the good of the majority.

by NineInchNachos on 3/21/2011 @ 9:25am
Mayor Marylin Strickland believes the billboards = Free Speech. It is illogical for clear channel billboard monopoly supporters to attack her.

by fredo on 3/21/2011 @ 9:30am
The little boy with the stick might occasionally use that stick to drive off a venomous snake or rabid badger. That would be a good thing wouldn't it?


by fredo on 3/21/2011 @ 9:33am
"There is no question they hurt nearby property owners, the commons, and real estate values." jesse

So if I permit a billboard permit holder to place a digital sign on top of my commercial building and he sends me a check every month for $2000, that would hurt my real estate value? Sorry, I'm not following your thinking.


by NineInchNachos on 3/21/2011 @ 10:13am
blood money. Property owner can also bank on good feelings when a driver distracted by billboard is killed and organs are harvested to save lives.

by fredo on 3/21/2011 @ 10:20am
Jesse claimed the billboards would hurt real estate values. I'm just giving him an opportunity to defend that position.

by fredo on 3/21/2011 @ 10:24am
Nachos, what if someone driving down your street saw the Holistic Forge Works and in a moment of distraction they ran over a small child in the street? How would that be any different from a fatality caused by a billboard, a song on the radio, a text message, or putting on makeup while driving?

by NineInchNachos on 3/21/2011 @ 10:37am
Holistic Forge Works is very mindful that Americans take their own lives, health of the community and planet into their hands when they drive an automobile. For this reason HFW maintains an almost invisible physical presence, blending in completely with the civilian population...

HFW, The Tacomic and subsidiaries does not recommend billboards, putting on makup or texting/sexting or fiddling with the radio while driving. We don't even recommend driving.

Cruise in smooth plush comfort, ride mass transit!

by NineInchNachos on 3/21/2011 @ 10:41am
Furthermore, we recommend businesses opt for hand painted signage attached to their physical storefront.

by NineInchNachos on 3/21/2011 @ 10:54am
advertise where god intended: Newspapers, TEE-VEE, Radio.

by NineInchNachos on 3/21/2011 @ 10:55am
or focus on creating quality products that advertise themselves with genuine word of mouth.

by fredo on 3/21/2011 @ 10:58am
"or focus on creating quality products that advertise themselves with genuine word of mouth."

for example...?

by NineInchNachos on 3/21/2011 @ 11:22am
- Arab Democracy Street Movements
- Costi Top Brush Chimney Services
- Acme Roofing
- Mitchell Plumbing
- Exit133.com
- Save our Sonics guy

by NineInchNachos on 3/21/2011 @ 11:40am
anyhow, here is a list of dos and don'ts that may help us...

www.saveoursonics.org/Resources/DosDonts...

by Jesse on 3/21/2011 @ 3:19pm
"So if I permit a billboard permit holder to place a digital sign on top of my commercial building and he sends me a check every month for $2000, that would hurt my real estate value? Sorry, I'm not following your thinking." -- fredo

This scenario certainly doesn't hurt your specific real estate value. It hurts everyone else on the street and there are more of them than there are of you.

by fredo on 3/21/2011 @ 3:25pm
" It hurts everyone else on the street"

please explain how you determined this.

by NineInchNachos on 3/21/2011 @ 3:30pm
I feel your pain Tacoma, wherever you are.

by Jesse on 3/21/2011 @ 3:38pm
" It hurts everyone else on the street" please explain how you determined this. -- fredo

You can't think of a reason why someone wouldn't want to live by a billboard? Imagine when you bought your house that a billboard was right in the middle of your next door neighbors yard. That wouldn't have influenced your decision to purchase there?

by NineInchNachos on 3/21/2011 @ 3:53pm
Fredo's super power is the ability to play dumb. You need to use outrageous hypothetical questions taken to an absurd extreme.

"If you push something hard enough, it will fall over" Fudd's First Law of Opposition.

by fredo on 3/21/2011 @ 3:58pm
Your statement wasn't about my opinion or one person's perspective. I believe you said "it hurts everyone else on the street." I can actually imagine some people wanting to live in this environment. I've been in Times Square, on the Las Vegas Strip and in Hong Kong where the digital billboards are 60 feet high and placed practically right next to each other . It's not someplace I would like to live but lots of people do and it's not hard to believe that a lot of them like it!

Do the billboards harm property values? I don't have the answer to that. But I doubt there is any evidence. If you can find it, please post.

by The Jinxmedic on 3/21/2011 @ 5:07pm
"Cruise in smooth plush comfort, ride mass transit!"

I'll have it known that I have ridden the bus to work far more often than a certain poster on this board, who I believe has ridden it to the office, um, NEVER.

That being said, if it is given that digital billboards lower property values, their presence then makes it easier for first-time homeowners to purchase a house. As an added benefit, they also reduce the need for interior lighting during the evening hours, thus saving on the utility bills for those same first-time homeowners. See? It's a win-win scenario. Lemons/lemonade, and all that.

by fredo on 3/21/2011 @ 5:13pm
Supporting the digitals shows that you support our city council. Why can't everybody get on board behind our wonderful Mayor Ms. Strickland? Just a year ago she was the darling of immigration "reform" movement. Now she's trying to reform our billboard laws and what's happened to all her support?

by Erik on 3/21/2011 @ 5:13pm
Here are 10 reasons billboards are bad for cities:

Come see America the beautiful, if you can. Amber waves of grain? It is more like a ride through the yellow pages: a windshield vista of 50-foot beer cans and towering casino signs.

Many thought billboards were an endangered species in 1965 when Congress passed the Highway Beautification Act. But the law was so riddled with loopholes and enforcement so lax that in recent years, billboard companies have put up thousands of new, bigger, more obtrusive billboards.

In a relatively short time, outdoor advertising has gone from Burma Shave to Blade Runner: from small and folksy to huge and intrusive. We've now entered the era of digital billboards -- giant outdoor TV screens wasting energy while degrading the landscape and distracting drivers.

Billboards are the definition of a roadside distraction. Their entire purpose is to take your eyes off the road and put them on giant outdoor advertisements. Safety is just one of the reasons why many communities have been trying to regulate billboards for decades.

Curbing billboards is not easy, but it can be done. This article lays out the case for billboard control. It discusses the reasons beyond safety for why we need to halt construction of new billboards and strictly regulate those that remain.

1. Billboards are a form of pollution -- visual pollution

Over the years, billboards have been described as the "junk mail of the highway," "litter on a stick," "visual kudzu," "urban blight," and more, but in their simplest form billboards are a form of visual pollution.

Regulating billboards is no different from regulating noxious fumes, sewage discharges, or excessive noise. The U.S. Supreme Court has said: "Pollution is not limited to the air we breathe and the water we drink; it can equally offend the eye and ear."

While the messages on a billboard can be ugly or ordinary when they are enlarged to the size of a house, placed on poles 50-100 feet high, randomly strewn along every street, even covering entire buildings, they become a visual and environmental hazard. Like overly loud noise -- strictly regulated in many communities -- billboards thrust a discordant commercial note into our environment. They deprive us of visual access to scenic vistas and create a strident, hectic atmosphere in cities.

2. Billboards are out of place in most locations

Our landscape is one of America's greatest resources. Its value is economic as well as aesthetic, psychological as well as recreational, spiritual as well as physical. Every landscape, rural or urban, has its own kind of beauty and uniqueness. In every kind of landscape billboards are a disturbing alien intrusion. Like empty beer cans in a mountain stream, they simply don't belong because they commercialize, homogenize, and degrade our natural landscape.

Visual clutter may be appropriate in a few limited locations, such as a city's entertainment district (e.g., Times Square or the Las Vegas Strip). In most cases, however, billboards obliterate architectural character and ruin natural beauty. They also undermine community livability and sustainability. Doug Kelbaugh, of the University of Michigan, School of Architecture put it this way: "If a building, a landscape, or a city is not beautiful, it will not be loved, if it is not loved, it will not be maintained. In short it won't be sustained."

3. Billboards destroy distinctiveness

Billboards look the same whether they are in Mississippi, Montana, or Malaysia. As a result, billboards homogenize our communities. They help turn unique places into "Anyplace." In fact, almost nothing will destroy the distinctive character of a place faster than uncontrolled signs and billboards. This has negative economic consequences.

"Community differentiation" is a key concept in economic development today. If you can't differentiate your community from any other community you have no competitive advantage. Put another way, the "image of a community is fundamentally important to its economic well being."

Every day, people make decisions about where to live, invest, or vacation based on what communities look like. Attractive, well-ordered communities have an advantage over ugly, chaotic ones. Take tourism: the more one community comes to look like every other community, the less reason there is to visit. On the other hand, the more a community does to protect and enhance its distinctive character, whether natural or architectural, the more reason there is to visit.

Billboards destroy distinctiveness and undermine our sense of place while they commercialize our neighborhoods.

... article continues with:
4. Billboards are the only form of advertising that you can't turn off or avoid
5. Billboard companies sell something they don't own -- our field of vision
6. Billboards are ineffective and unnecessary
7. Billboard companies exercise almost no restraint in the placement of outdoor ads
8. Billboards are both a cause and a symptom of urban blight
9. Billboards are bad for business
10. Digital billboards, use huge amounts of energy contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming


Read the entire article here:

Come see America the beautiful, if you can. Amber waves of grain? It is more like a ride through the yellow pages: a windshield vista of 50-foot beer cans and towering casino signs.

Many thought billboards were an endangered species in 1965 when Congress passed the Highway Beautification Act. But the law was so riddled with loopholes and enforcement so lax that in recent years, billboard companies have put up thousands of new, bigger, more obtrusive billboards.

In a relatively short time, outdoor advertising has gone from Burma Shave to Blade Runner: from small and folksy to huge and intrusive. We've now entered the era of digital billboards -- giant outdoor TV screens wasting energy while degrading the landscape and distracting drivers.

Billboards are the definition of a roadside distraction. Their entire purpose is to take your eyes off the road and put them on giant outdoor advertisements. Safety is just one of the reasons why many communities have been trying to regulate billboards for decades.

Curbing billboards is not easy, but it can be done. This article lays out the case for billboard control. It discusses the reasons beyond safety for why we need to halt construction of new billboards and strictly regulate those that remain.

1. Billboards are a form of pollution -- visual pollution

Over the years, billboards have been described as the "junk mail of the highway," "litter on a stick," "visual kudzu," "urban blight," and more, but in their simplest form billboards are a form of visual pollution.

Regulating billboards is no different from regulating noxious fumes, sewage discharges, or excessive noise. The U.S. Supreme Court has said: "Pollution is not limited to the air we breathe and the water we drink; it can equally offend the eye and ear."

While the messages on a billboard can be ugly or ordinary when they are enlarged to the size of a house, placed on poles 50-100 feet high, randomly strewn along every street, even covering entire buildings, they become a visual and environmental hazard. Like overly loud noise -- strictly regulated in many communities -- billboards thrust a discordant commercial note into our environment. They deprive us of visual access to scenic vistas and create a strident, hectic atmosphere in cities.

2. Billboards are out of place in most locations

Our landscape is one of America's greatest resources. Its value is economic as well as aesthetic, psychological as well as recreational, spiritual as well as physical. Every landscape, rural or urban, has its own kind of beauty and uniqueness. In every kind of landscape billboards are a disturbing alien intrusion. Like empty beer cans in a mountain stream, they simply don't belong because they commercialize, homogenize, and degrade our natural landscape.

Visual clutter may be appropriate in a few limited locations, such as a city's entertainment district (e.g., Times Square or the Las Vegas Strip). In most cases, however, billboards obliterate architectural character and ruin natural beauty. They also undermine community livability and sustainability. Doug Kelbaugh, of the University of Michigan, School of Architecture put it this way: "If a building, a landscape, or a city is not beautiful, it will not be loved, if it is not loved, it will not be maintained. In short it won't be sustained."

3. Billboards destroy distinctiveness

Billboards look the same whether they are in Mississippi, Montana, or Malaysia. As a result, billboards homogenize our communities. They help turn unique places into "Anyplace." In fact, almost nothing will destroy the distinctive character of a place faster than uncontrolled signs and billboards. This has negative economic consequences.

"Community differentiation" is a key concept in economic development today. If you can't differentiate your community from any other community you have no competitive advantage. Put another way, the "image of a community is fundamentally important to its economic well being."

Every day, people make decisions about where to live, invest, or vacation based on what communities look like. Attractive, well-ordered communities have an advantage over ugly, chaotic ones. Take tourism: the more one community comes to look like every other community, the less reason there is to visit. On the other hand, the more a community does to protect and enhance its distinctive character, whether natural or architectural, the more reason there is to visit.

Billboards destroy distinctiveness and undermine our sense of place while they commercialize our neighborhoods.

... article continues with:
4. Billboards are the only form of advertising that you can't turn off or avoid
5. Billboard companies sell something they don't own -- our field of vision
6. Billboards are ineffective and unnecessary
7. Billboard companies exercise almost no restraint in the placement of outdoor ads
8. Billboards are both a cause and a symptom of urban blight
9. Billboards are bad for business
10. Digital billboards, use huge amounts of energy contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming

by fredo on 3/21/2011 @ 5:33pm
Sidenote:

If a billboard is litter on a stick, then I think we can agree that buswraps are litter on wheels.

What really drives the billboard business is not the shrewd abilities of the people who own companies like CC but rather the existance of lots of money to be spent on advertising. The city of Tacoma is a huge purchaser of advertising including lots spent on ...you guessed it, Clear Channel Advertising. There are City ads on billboard faces all over town. How can we fight these people while we're spending money on them?

by NineInchNachos on 3/21/2011 @ 7:43pm
bus wraps at least help keep the buses going. Meanwhile I saw a Weekly Volcano billboard today on my way to pizza.

Boycott the Volcano!

by fredo on 3/21/2011 @ 7:53pm
sales tax from billboard advertising helps keep the buses going.

What difference does it make if a 30 ft X 10 ft advertisement is stretched over a static framed billboard to create visual pollution in one spot or stretched over a bus to create visual pollution all over town?

by NineInchNachos on 3/21/2011 @ 9:00pm
transit advertising is not a clear channel company. they're local

by Mofo from the Hood on 3/21/2011 @ 9:03pm
Probably the real danger of digital billboards is their capacity to flash subliminal messages like, "Look Over Here" and "Clear Channel Loves You."

by NineInchNachos on 3/21/2011 @ 9:16pm
www.jayray.com/work_samples.php?id=16

by NineInchNachos on 3/21/2011 @ 9:20pm
rustygeorge.com/#advertising

by NineInchNachos on 3/21/2011 @ 9:21pm
WHAT IF these cause more accidents than they prevent? Ironic? Or just your tax dollars at work?

www.tacomadailyindex.com/portals-code/li...

by NineInchNachos on 3/21/2011 @ 9:23pm
thanks Erik!

Rope A Dope
The billboard industry uses the term "Rope A Dope" in reference to their marketing techniques used in the strategy to swap small, old, obsolete, or illegal billboards for new billboards, electronic or otherwise.

scenicstpete.org/detail-pages/rope-a-dop...

by Mofo from the Hood on 3/21/2011 @ 10:31pm
What if the Tacoma City Council negotiated some flex time on the digital boards? Aquarium screen saver or romantic fireplace with flaming alder logs...

by NineInchNachos on 3/21/2011 @ 11:32pm
amber alerts with flying toasters

by NineInchNachos on 3/22/2011 @ 8:20am
are you going to drink this bullshit milkshake?



It’s clear the city has been trying to avoid this particular fight.

“The sign companies have lots of money,” Anderson said, explaining why the city decided in 2007 to try to settle. “When a community like ours says we’re going to go out and do this and radically affect their product, they concentrate their resources.

Read more: www.thenewstribune.com/2011/03/22/159474...

by Jesse on 3/22/2011 @ 8:25am
If Anderson would have come out and said the city would fight this until the end of time, Clear Channel would have backed down. They know they'd lose, as precedent clearly indicates, so why would CC use any money to fight it?

It was a stare down where Anderson blinked before it even started.

Maybe this can be seen as why we need a strong Mayor system back in Tacoma. Anderson has little to lose because he isn't elected.

by Mofo from the Hood on 3/22/2011 @ 8:43am
Some of you folks need to take a field trip down to the Chinese Reconciliation Park. While you're poised there in a lotus position with Cheeto dust on your lips, why don't you ask yourself how park-style reconciling developed in Tacoma.

by fredo on 3/22/2011 @ 8:47am
“The sign companies have lots of money,” Anderson said

Tacoma had lots of money too... before spending our reserves on employee raises, prius automobiles, leaf automobiles, new furniture, Sauros building site preparations, and pogoda gift acceptance fees.


by fredo on 3/22/2011 @ 9:06am
"If Anderson would have come out and said the city would fight this until the end of time, Clear Channel would have backed down. They know they'd lose, as precedent clearly indicates, so why would CC use any money to fight it?" jesse

Yes, you're right jesse. Its hard to negotiate from a position of weakness. But there's another problem here. Anderson shouldn't be taking sides on the issue or making public proclamations on important issues such as this. We have an elected Mayor. It's Marilyn Strickland who should have stood up for our city and our billboard ordinance. She's so involved in her own ethics scandal she can't seem to get focused on our City. Anderson can tell the council whatever he wants during executive session but he should refer questions on important issues to the mayor.


by Mofo from the Hood on 3/22/2011 @ 9:31am
It's probable that Clear Channel may have a surplus of money because of business profit. They might decide to borrow money from their friends at the bank.

What does the City of Tacoma have? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

by NineInchNachos on 3/22/2011 @ 10:17am
Tacoma has universities of indoctrinated young people, complete saturation of community gardens and surplus pumpkins... near by rural communities with skilled pumpkin cannon insurgent fighters waiting for an excuse to radicalize our bored young people... you do the math.

by jenyum on 3/22/2011 @ 4:50pm
I am awaiting specific information regarding the potential costs associated with continued litigation. I am inclined to say I don't care, (fight 'em anyway!) but it's probably good to have some actual figures for those who do....

by fredo on 3/22/2011 @ 5:06pm
I am of the opinion that CC doesn't even want this to go to trial.

Why do I say this? Because if the case goes to trial there's a chance they will lose on all counts, they might even be required to pay the fees they owe the city of Tacoma.

Therefore, their goal is not to discover the truth- AKA the merits of the case, but just to abuse the legal process as long as possible, all the while earning substantial profits from the illegal boards.

It would be in our interest to reject the settlement & push for earliest trial date possible.

by NineInchNachos on 3/22/2011 @ 6:13pm
looks like the city is saving some money by having clear channel do all the legal work for us!

www.cnc-tacoma.com/images/documents/bill...

by NineInchNachos on 3/22/2011 @ 6:15pm
please email the president of clear channel your thoughts on the matter! oliviavoigtslippens@clearchannel.com

by NineInchNachos on 3/22/2011 @ 6:17pm

Jill Jensen on Turn out the Lights Facebook page writes...



I found this posted on Eric Anderson's page:
COUNCIL REQUESTS/INQUIRIES

7. Regarding Council questions related to the taxes the City receives from billboards, the Tax and License and Planning Divisions provide the following responses:

Billboard businesses are subject to Business & Occupation tax on their revenues at the service tax classification of .004 of gross income.
Billboard businesses do not rent real property out in conjunction with their advertising services. Billboard structures are classified as personal property versus real property; therefore, billboard businesses pay personal property taxes to Pierce County.
There are no sales taxes collected on billboard space rental. This is also the case with radio, television, direct mail, and newspaper advertising as well.
A property owner leasing to Clear Channel would need an Annual Rental License. There is no City tax due on their revenue.

by fredo on 3/22/2011 @ 7:23pm
That's a good posting, thanks nachos!

The question remains:

Why is the city of Tacoma renting space on the clear channel billboards? I would like an answer to this. How can the city both oppose billboards and be engaged in a lawsuit with the CC company AND be renting space on the boards at the same time? This is worse than illogical, it undercuts our argument that this type of ad damages the city.

Another tactic the city might use is to start sending notifications to CC about the presence of grafitti on the billboards and their structures. I think they only a have a few days ONCE they are notified to paint over the grafitti or they begin generating fines. I'll bet at least 100 of their faces here in Tacoma have some taggings.

by cisserosmiley on 3/22/2011 @ 7:35pm
the property tax "collected" by the county is split into tacoma metro parks, local tacoma schools, and the port of tacoma...a minority of prpoerty tax then goes to county and state funding, most goes to tacoma stuff directly.

by cisserosmiley on 3/22/2011 @ 7:36pm
the presence of a billboard is totally calculated in sales transactions, which in turn create higher real property values on the tax role

by fredo on 3/22/2011 @ 7:38pm
I don't know how much Clear Channel pays in personal property taxes in Pierce County. I'll bet most of you would be underwhelmed with the answer. The tax rate is only about $11 per thousand valuation and a lot of those old billboards have probably been depreciated down to $1000 or less. Just a guess.

by cisserosmiley on 3/22/2011 @ 7:46pm
it is not the personal tax that is a benefit, it is the property owners inflated valuations caused by a cash cow sitting on top of their property. example, the dude across the street from me operates a used tire storage yard and re-sale operation. used tire dude makes a fat clearchannel check each month. when that property changes hands the revenue is calculated into the sales price and thus the property tax - forever inflating the property tax associated with that plat. it is hard to imagine fredo believing taxes are not being collected???

by fredo on 3/22/2011 @ 7:56pm
You know for a fact that the property with the billboard has an inflated valuation and therefore higher property taxes? could you provide the street address and I'll try to look into it.

by NineInchNachos on 3/22/2011 @ 8:55pm
isn't anybody else weirded out by that pdf? Should a entity we're trying to regulate be writing regulations for itself to be rubber stamped by the city lawyers paid to defend the law of the land?

by NineInchNachos on 3/22/2011 @ 9:10pm
maybe i'm reading it wrong...

by cisserosmiley on 3/22/2011 @ 9:24pm
2 business next to each other; 1) 6000 sq ft land only at 4145 6th ave is valued at $74,000 (plus building)...next to it is 4301 6th at 12,000 sq ft is valued land only is $350,000 (plus building) hmmm...o ya the $350,000 lot has a billboard.

by fredo on 3/22/2011 @ 10:02pm
Can't argue with your numbers or conclusion cissero. I don't know how much the guy gets for allowing the billboard on his property but it appears the property w/o billboard would only be worth about $150K, so that means someone was willing to pay a $200K premium to get that lot with the attached sign. If we use a cap rate of 7 that means someone is getting at least $14,000 per year. Not bad.

by cisserosmiley on 3/22/2011 @ 10:14pm
it kind of makes me want a billboard, but since since there are some good arguments about the effect on some people's personal lives i support not having them.

by Jesse on 3/23/2011 @ 8:21am
250 people with billboards vs. 199,750 without.

by fredo on 3/23/2011 @ 9:41am
Jesse is right!

But the billboards all belong to one company. They have leasehold agreements with as many as 250 property owners (probably much fewer) of undetermined length.

The city has proposed accepting a settlement with Clear Channel. The settlement (written by Clear Channel legal staff) has the effect of establishing a monopoly for the benefit of CC. No one can have a permit to install a digital billboard unless they are willing to give up some traditional billboards.

The city is planning to give a legal monopoly in order to rid the city of an illegal monopoly.

This will cause our city a grievous injury which will last into perpetuity, all so that we don't have to invest in some legal help.

Ironically, if the suit were litigated today, the judge might provide Tacoma with a directed verdict in our behalf even if we don't mount a defense! The burden of proof is Clear Channel's!

Why assume that we cannot prevail? Why?

by NineInchNachos on 3/23/2011 @ 9:54am
Rope a Dope! City Manager/staff is on the take.

A few property owners were speaking out at the planning commission meeting. One lady who has billboards on her building would like to have illegal billboards removed but can't because of contracts signed by previous owner... TRULY a dance with the devil.

by NineInchNachos on 3/23/2011 @ 10:07am
Friends, Meet Olivia Lippens trunc.it/eq9px
force behind #Tacoma Clear Channel Spam "Shock and Awe" constitutions matter campaign of terror

www2.bizjournals.com/seattle/events/2010...

(thanks ANONYMOUS TIPSTER! )

by fredo on 3/23/2011 @ 10:10am
Nachos, you've mentioned city manager and staff possibly on "the take"

I am concerned about that. But also about the possiblity that the Mayor and City Council are on the take or could be induced to throw their vote in favor of settlement.

This isn't something that you're likely to find in a written memoranda. There may be no "smoking gun"

What we might see, is key Tacoma leaders getting sweet jobs for themselves or close family members with Clear Channel or an affilitate, or perhaps some time share vacations, or perhaps some frequent flier miles to travel on trips to the orient.

Please Dave Boe and Marty Campbell, don't succumb to these temptations which might be thrown your way.

by Jesse on 3/23/2011 @ 10:35am
Stolen from RR's Facebook page via Eric's page I think. Read carefully. Note the city hired attorney is getting guidance from Clear Channel as to what they want from the city and how the settlement should read. I realize it was probably a verbal settlement first and then written down so this would be part of the process.

But, did the city know at this time that Kerslake was taking instruction from Clear Channel? Why is Clear Channel writing laws? Can I write some laws to benefit me? I didn't realize this was something I could do. Thanks city of Tacoma! Not only can I trade 200 illegal made up "permits" for a few real ones, but I can write the laws of my business too!

Honestly, if you are on the City Council and you're reading this, you look like damned fools... and it just keeps getting worse.

www.cnc-tacoma.com/images/documents/bill...

by fredo on 3/23/2011 @ 10:40am
Time to start a citizen's initiative to put this issue to rest once and for all?

Is there a local attorney who could craft such an initiative?

I will pledge to collect 100 voter signatures. Will anyone match my pledge?

Normally, voters speak through their elected leaders. But in this case our leaders don't seem to be listening.

by cisserosmiley on 3/23/2011 @ 10:44am
i will match your pledge

by The Jinxmedic on 3/23/2011 @ 10:52am
Is this like the Fredo Chinese Reconcillation Pledge?

by Jesse on 3/23/2011 @ 10:52am
I believe there is an attorney on this by the name of Doug Schafer volunteering his time. If I understand correctly, the document link I just provided was dug up by him.

by NineInchNachos on 3/23/2011 @ 10:56am
The Tacoma Urbanist is the city's most prominent divorce attorney. Perhaps he could draw up paperwork for a symbolic city of destiny divorce from Clear Channel Outdoor.

by cisserosmiley on 3/23/2011 @ 10:58am
WE only need 8,ooo sigs for fredo, maybe a billboard vert would help spread the word?

by fredo on 3/23/2011 @ 11:07am
If you're right cissero, we only need 78 more activists like you and me to put this on the ballot.

I nominate Doug Schaefer to write up an initiative, perhaps as simple as copy/paste the current city law on billboards. We meet at the Amocat for a fund raiser and distribute the initiatives.

Let's not sit on our thumbs and allow Tacoma to be screwed over.

by cisserosmiley on 3/23/2011 @ 11:11am
www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/07/clear_c...
read about how in the UK cc has started turning digital billboards into electronic stores that can read your smartphone tag and charge your bank account...why are people shopping from their cars while stopped at a red light?

by NineInchNachos on 3/23/2011 @ 11:50am
The president of Clear Channel out door in a recent interview types:

=============

Passionate cause(s): Civic engagement. I think people who are involved and passionate about being involved are what moves the meter move from good to great in so many functions of a community. This ranges from philanthropy to donating time to a neighborhood group or public policy issue — this is what creates great communituies.

===========

RR Commentary: I suppose causing traffic accidents that allow organs to be harvested which in turn save lives is a community service.

by NineInchNachos on 3/23/2011 @ 2:22pm
so I sent that info request pdf from Doug Schaefer off to the city council... here is Eric Anderson's reply to all response:

===============

Mayor and Council Members,

You received this email from R.R. Anderson earlier today. We have received input from Clear Channel with regard to the ordinance to be written. We also receive input from many others. We will continue to do so as your staff and recommend that you do so as well. I should not have to add, but feel I must, that in the end, the ordinance will be written the way you wish it to be.

Eric and Elizabeth

===========

by NineInchNachos on 3/23/2011 @ 2:24pm
I can tell you, I believe it came as a surprise so some council folk that ordinance drafts moving from the city manager to the council originated within the belly of Clear Channel Outdoor.

by Erik on 3/23/2011 @ 3:40pm
Received input = writing the entire ordinance? Hmmmmm.

This email is very disturbing any way one reads it:

www.cnc-tacoma.com/images/documents/bill...

If the email is correct that Schafer obtained, and that the ordinance being proposed is the same one sent over, then there was never any "negotiation" by the city, only a complete capitulation and an offer to place in any billboard ordinance requested to override the years of citizen work on the 1997 billboard ordinance.

Here is something similar:

Oil and Gas Industry Writes Its Own Pipeline Standards

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the federal agency that oversees the countrys 2.3 million miles of oil and natural gas pipelines, has adopted as part of its regulations all or parts of at least 29 standards written by the oil and natural gas industry.

The revelation, which comes to light as part of an investigation into pipeline safety by The Washington Independent, raises significant questions about the relationship between PHMSA and the industry that it regulates. It also feeds into comparisons between the agency and the now-defunct Minerals Management Service, which was in charge of permitting and licensing offshore drilling projects in the run-up to the April 20 Deepwater Horizon explosion and resulting oil spill.


washingtonindependent.com/94743/oil-and-...

by fredo on 3/23/2011 @ 3:54pm
It makes perfect sense.

Clear Channel offers to give up some crappy old signs in secondary locations that don't generate much revenue anyway in exchange for permission to install some high revenue generating digitals located at high traffic locations.

This company is nothing less than the devil's unholy spawn.

by NineInchNachos on 3/23/2011 @ 4:04pm
or like the for-profit prison industrial complex in Arizona writing the controversial immigration laws... That similarity should raise some hairs with our city council.

by NineInchNachos on 3/23/2011 @ 4:04pm
What would Anders Ibsen do?

by fredo on 3/23/2011 @ 5:49pm
"like the for-profit prison industrial complex in Arizona writing the controversial immigration laws... " nachos

well there is one small difference...the controversial immigration laws written by the for-profit prison industrial complex are widely popular within the State of Arizona and outside the state as well. Millions want these laws adopted and enforced.

the Clear channel settlement is popular with nobody outside city hall.

by Mofo from the Hood on 3/23/2011 @ 7:46pm
I suspect that there is a hidden hand working to make Tacoma Amish-friendly.

by jenyum on 3/23/2011 @ 8:13pm
Darn it, Mofo, you've uncovered my secret long-term plan. Now Amish central command will have to send a new family of sleeper agents.

by NineInchNachos on 3/23/2011 @ 10:43pm
full archive info dump of materials returned from info request...

doug2.com/billboards/

dig and report on juicy stuff !

by NineInchNachos on 3/23/2011 @ 11:31pm
how does this make you feel?






by NineInchNachos on 3/23/2011 @ 11:32pm
billboard in 6th ave residential neighborhood down from southern kitchen

by cisserosmiley on 3/23/2011 @ 11:57pm
what would it take to require full video functionality not just the slide show crap they are gonna do - then city council meetings could be broadcast over the cc "network"

by Mofo from the Hood on 3/24/2011 @ 7:59am
From My Inbox:

Clear Channel is working on plans for an anniversary edition of "Constitutions Matter" reproduced in brighter than real life technicolor Hi-Def Digital.

by NineInchNachos on 3/24/2011 @ 8:45am
reruns? they wouldn't dare.

by NineInchNachos on 3/24/2011 @ 8:46am
these things are giant TEE VEEs the only thing stopping them from full on realtime video is their word.

by NineInchNachos on 3/24/2011 @ 8:50am
however, I did suggest that if they do a Constitutions Matter 2.0 sign they switch to a MS Comic Sans Font. Would be friendlier than a serif font.

by Mofo from the Hood on 3/24/2011 @ 9:15am
My suggestion to Clear Channel for the anniversary edition "Constitutions Matter" includes a motion technique used in early film cartoons, "Follow the bouncing ball."

by NineInchNachos on 3/24/2011 @ 9:52am
Constitutions Matter, now buy this egg mcmuffin with your smart phone

by The Jinxmedic on 3/24/2011 @ 9:54am
Maybe these guys would be the ones to contact regarding reprogramming digital billboards: tacomarobotics.org/old/index.html


by NineInchNachos on 3/24/2011 @ 10:00am
Robots are cool.

by NineInchNachos on 3/24/2011 @ 10:09am
Facebook Smarty pants Steve Garrett: I calculated the amount of energy needed to power proposed 38 new digital billboards = energy needed to power 316 average homes.

by NineInchNachos on 3/24/2011 @ 10:10am
doesn't that cancel out any energy savings from our fancy parking garage LEED remodel and Urban Waters combined ? GO GREEN! ENFORCE 1997 BILLBOARD LAW!

by NineInchNachos on 3/24/2011 @ 11:02am
hey, Some folks constitutions matter more than others...

www.1521second.com/testimonials.php#imag...

the president of Clear Channel loves billboard advertising so much she lives in a high rise condo in a city where billboards are banned. Shitty Billboards? Let them eat Tacomans!

by gritz thekat on 3/24/2011 @ 11:30am
...shifty billboards, let them eat tacomanians

by Erik on 3/24/2011 @ 5:50pm
NE Tacoma weighs in against the threat of electronic billboards in Tacoma:

___________

City of Tacoma Planning Commission
747 Market Street, rm 1036
Tacoma, WA 98402
By e-mail to: planning@cityoftacoma.org

The Board of the Northeast Tacoma Neighborhood Council endorses the objections from neighborhood councils and residents in Tacoma to the introduction of electronic (digital) billboards in the city.

Although NE Tacoma is not slated in this discussion to host any such billboards, we are residents of Tacoma and will suffer along with the residents of neighborhoods slated to receive such billboards and those who visit those areas. We have our own static billboard issues that we grapple with already, and support curtailment of billboards in general in the city.

We find the arguments worthy that have been made by neighborhood councils, letters to The News Tribune, and resident petitions for challenging Clear Channel�s litigation and abandoning the out-of-court settlement. We urge the City Council to take action accordingly.

At the very least, if we are compelled to accept some form of digital, electronic billboards, we believe that:

Their size should be restricted to a much smaller maximum (less than half that proposed)

Height strongly limited

Use restricted to industrial/commercial corridors where they would not impinge on nearby residences

Brightness limits established consistent with ambient light levels

Images designed to not distract drivers

The rate of image change regulated to ensure that drivers are exposed to no more than one image in the average time that they would see the sign clearly.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Please do not hesitate to call me at 253.219.1617.

Sincerely,

John


John Thurlow
Chair, NE Tacoma Neighborhood Council
johnthurlow@harbornet.com
mob: +1 253 219 1617
www.netacoma.org

by jenyum on 3/25/2011 @ 7:00pm
Argh. Remember last week when I said I requested information regarding costs associated with potential litigation? I finally received a (non) answer:

"Litigation has the potential to cost the City of Tacoma millions of dollars. Other cities have 10-20 years in litigation with billboard companies. I can’t speak to the likelihood that we would receive money from potential fines assessed to Clear Channel."


Millions of dollars is a little vague, and these are not supposed to be "potential fines" (they should be existing fines) under our billboard ordinance, which is what said litigation would be enforcing.

Meh. I am dissapointed, I usually get much more specific responses to requests like this. Also I had been waiting on it to submit something to the Planning Commission (I see now there was no need for that) and it came in a half hour after the deadline.

Again, it seems there is just an assumption that enforcement would lead to Certain Fiscal Doom but there's very little basis provided for that assumption.

by jenyum on 3/25/2011 @ 7:24pm
Meanwhile....

online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052...

Clear Channel Outdoor's entire stock price is essentially at this point dependent on the speed of their digital billboards. (Not even sure they care about traditional billboards much at this point.)


we've noticed through fairly diligent fieldwork that many of Clear Channel's digital displays have moved to a frequency of one image per seven seconds, as opposed to the industry standard of one image per eight seconds. That extra second, while it sounds immaterial, allows Clear Channel to display an extra 1,543 ads per day per board. With 615 boards in 36 U.S. markets, that equates to an incremental $37.9 million in revenue, or an extra 10 cents per share, and so our fiscal 2011 earnings-per-share estimate improves from nine cents to 19 cents. Consensus is 12 cents per share.

by Mofo from the Hood on 3/25/2011 @ 7:29pm
Maybe someone from the City of Tacoma could categorize the variable costs and the fixed costs of maintaining billboards Tacoma.

Billboards might be categorized as follows:
~Billboards defined as a business entity = Asset with variable costs.
~Billboards defined as blight = Liability with fixed costs.
~Clear Channel Digital Billboards = Liability with variable costs fixed in perpetuity.

by fredo on 3/25/2011 @ 7:38pm
Jen-Of course the city wants to remain vague on all this. Wouldn't want to say or do anything which might queer the offer.

I think your request should have been answered more specifically. Millions of dollars could mean anything from $2M (which is what we just spent to rent furniture for the city of Tacoma) to hundreds of millions (which would be every cent in a biennial budget). I'm surprised that councilmembers didn't want a breakdown on legal costs before deciding to settle.

The public has a right to know this information. I appreciate your efforts.

by NineInchNachos on 3/25/2011 @ 7:51pm

by NineInchNachos on 3/25/2011 @ 7:51pm

by NineInchNachos on 3/25/2011 @ 7:53pm
boycott the volcano!

www.weeklyvolcano.com/entertainment/spew...

by fredo on 3/25/2011 @ 8:09pm
interesting pdf files. thanks nachos

by fredo on 3/26/2011 @ 9:06am
Talked to bill dickson. he doesn't want digital billboards, he just wants the 6 billboards on his property to be left alone. His billboards are all on tyler street. If he's no longer allowed to have advertising he wants to use the billboards for placing political statements.

Check this out:

Mayor Strickland...Ethics matter

by NineInchNachos on 3/26/2011 @ 9:19am
i'm OK with political billboards. The uncle sam one out in hick-ville is great. Plus the fines from Dickson's 6 billboards could fill a lot of potholes.

Hey! paint CONSTITUTIONS MATTER on the side of KalaKala. Clear Channel will mistake it for one of their billboards and spend millions to keep it here in Tacoma... it will still be dangerous and look like crap, but it will be protected free speech and 'untouchable' Anyone want an egg mcMuffin?

by Erik on 3/26/2011 @ 9:28pm
Tacoma's Central Neighborhood Council has now issued the most thorough comprehensive case against electronic billboards along with legal citations stating:

"Our review of court cases leads us to believe that the courts would uphold the City's 1997 ordinance. We are are enclosing several of those court cases that can be downloaded from our website..."

www.cnc-tacoma.com/images/documents/bill...

Come on Tacoma. Defend yourself from blightful 24 commercial spam machines.

by Mofo from the Hood on 3/27/2011 @ 11:26am
It may be that the coalitions against billboards must take a defensive strategy. They may believe that they have a moral high ground because their fight is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (constitutions matter)---all things which they say Clear Channel is degrading through the use of digital billboards. The coalitions against billboards are concerned with the quality of life experience.

But Clear Channel speaks in quantitative terms. Their offensive strategy seeks to maximize profit to increase its social, economic, and political power. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are experiences which they seek to ultimately define and decree as a force of law.

We see the mocking joke which Clear Channel has presented to Tacoma.

In other words, coalitions may bring their case to politicians and the courts; but it is highly probable that government officials are intertwined with private economic powers. Very few people in government have the moral constitution to defy their source of economic power.

by cisserosmiley on 3/27/2011 @ 12:18pm
when WE see politicians taking money from outside our local areas it should be an automatic NO vote on that candidate. is this clear channel issue bringing some light to the 2010 leg race where fey and jinkins took in hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars from seattle, bellevue, california, virginia...why? corporate giving! pre-lobbying is what i call political giving. if you all want this to go our way, pre-lobby, get out your check book and write checks to ryan mello, david boe, lauren walker and anders ibsen. give give give...then ask ask ask

by NineInchNachos on 4/18/2011 @ 8:31pm
City of Tacoma responds to public feedback in curt pdf document here

by NineInchNachos on 4/18/2011 @ 8:34pm
Q: Did Clear Channel write the code?

A: Clear Channel provided a draft code to staff and it was one item used as information for consideration by the Planning Commission, along with benchmarking from other cities and staff-level research. Ultimately, the Planning Commission decided what requirements and performance standards were used in the draft code

by NineInchNachos on 4/18/2011 @ 8:39pm
Q: Did the council consider increased energy use issues
with the digital billboards? How do digital billboards play
into being a “green” city?

A: Comment noted. Digital billboards, generally use more energy than a standard floodlit billboard.

by NineInchNachos on 4/18/2011 @ 8:46pm
Q: Provide a cost/benefit analysis from Clear Channel –
what they gain from the proposal

A: Comment noted. Studies exist which estimate the profitability of digital vs. standard billboards, but Clear Channel has not supplied this information.

by NineInchNachos on 4/18/2011 @ 8:51pm
Q: Clear Channel has a commitment to give back to
community

A: Comment noted. It is important to note changes are not designed for or only applicable to Clear Channel Outdoor

RR COMMENTARY: BULLLLLLSHIT!

by NineInchNachos on 4/18/2011 @ 9:02pm
BOYCOTT THESE EVIL SATANIC ORGANIZATIONS:

- Brain Injury Association of Washington
- Communities in Schools
- Graham Business Association
- United Way of Pierce County
- Proctor District Association
- American Red Cross
- Boys & Girls Club
- Clear Channel Outdoor
- Weekly Volcano
- Diamond Parking
- American Heart Association
- Washington Women’s Employment & Education (WWEE)

by NineInchNachos on 4/21/2011 @ 1:04pm
vol. 002 posterity i.feedtacoma.com/KevinFreitas/hey-clear-...

by NineInchNachos on 4/28/2011 @ 12:53pm
billboard news!

blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2011/04/27...


www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/afdi-de...

www.kirotv.com/news/27695820/detail.html


by NineInchNachos on 4/28/2011 @ 12:55pm
SIGN THIS PETITION!! COMMAND YOUR EMPLOYEES TO SIGN AS WELL!

tacomanewsvolcanotribuneweeklyreporterin...

by NineInchNachos on 4/28/2011 @ 1:23pm
also: slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/...

by Erik on 5/13/2011 @ 1:00pm
Support the blight machine moratorium!!1!

In a move some council members see as buying more time to consider a complex issue, the Tacoma City Council will consider an ordinance Tuesday that calls for up to a six month moratorium on new digital or conventional billboards in the city.

The proposal specifically seeks an "immediate moratorium on the acceptance of applications for the installation, erection, construction, replacement, modification, or improvement of static or changing electronic, digital, or changeable message billboards in all zoning districts."

It's meant as a way to more thoughtfully contemplate the complicated issues surrounding proposed billboard regulation changes and a settlement offer with Clear Channel Outdoor, Councilman Spiro Manthou said today.

“We’re trying to give the council more time to study the issue," Manthou said. "I think the feeling among council is when we do this (new legislation), whatever we do we want to get it right."


blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2011/05...

by fredo on 5/13/2011 @ 1:16pm
"...It's meant as a way to more thoughtfully contemplate the complicated issues" manthou

There's no need for any further contemplation, thoughtful or otherwise. The citizens have said they don't want the signs Spiro so turn down the settlement and let's move on to preparing our defense.

by NineInchNachos on 5/13/2011 @ 1:42pm
Anything that messes with Clear Channel's head is fine by me.

by NineInchNachos on 5/13/2011 @ 4:50pm
dude!

this whole moratorium thing is a ploy to rack up more cash on the fine counter!!! Tacoma is going to solve this budget crisis by erasing Clear Channel Corporation off the map! CLEAR ChANNEL Bankruptcy bitch!!

by NineInchNachos on 5/14/2011 @ 5:30pm
WOOT! blog.thenewstribune.com/opinion/2011/05/...

by NineInchNachos on 5/16/2011 @ 3:01pm
Here's Lippens' full statement:


We are shocked and disappointed by the City’s move for a moratorium -- and we believe those calling for the moratorium are making a tactical move that will lead the City back down the path of costly litigation. Clear Channel has been working in good faith with the City for nine months under a settlement agreement that City Council unanimously voted for to avoid litigation. This settlement provides meaningful sign consolidation with an initial reduction of over 35,000 square feet of signage removed from the City. But the language of this moratorium clearly states that it is designed to preserve "the status quo" -- and the "status quo" is the very situation that makes litigation unavoidable. Adopting the moratorium would be a clear signal that the City no longer wants to honor the settlement it signed. The only alternative is continuing the litigation, and we can only hope that the compelling logic that lead to the settlement agreement will once again win out.



Read more: blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2011/05...

by fredo on 5/16/2011 @ 4:44pm
She writes that she's "shocked and disappointed."

Shocked and disappointed apparently that Tacomans en masse have said they don't want the digital billboards at any cost and are willing to go to court.

If Tacoma is going to be a place worth caring about we are going to have to take a stand. I hope there will be a good turnout for tomorrow night's council meeting.

by Erik on 5/16/2011 @ 9:08pm
Breaking:

Read the Tacoma Planning Commission letter to the Tacoma City Council "[t]he Commission Emphatically Urges the Council to say no to digital billboards." (page 17)

cms.cityoftacoma.org/Planning/PlanningCo...

(Now it is the time for the Council to do the right thing and follow the advice of Tacoma residents & the Planning Commission for the betterment of the city)

by NineInchNachos on 5/16/2011 @ 10:45pm
I am shocked and turgid!

by Erik on 5/17/2011 @ 1:12am
From attorney Doug Shafer via the Tribune comments:

___________

Doug Schafer says:
May 16, 2011 at 9:00 pm

"It appears our city manager (hired in mid-2005) decided in mid-2007 not to oppose Clear Channel's lawsuit challenging our 1997 city council's billboard ordinance, but decided instead to negotiate and compromise with Clear Channel.

I am convinced, having carefully analyzed Clear Channel's court pleadings, that the city could have won that lawsuit quickly at little cost if it had engaged a capable lawyer to aggressively oppose Clear Channel.

I explain why in my memorandum dated 5-13-2011 posted at cnc-tacoma.com/proposed-electronic-billb... near the bottom of that webpage just above the summary of relevant court cases.

The city now should withdraw its settlement offer (that Clear Channel has never signed) and should begin enforcing our 1997 billboard ordinance. If Clear Channel files another lawsuit, the city should hire a capable lawyer to aggressively seek an early dismissal of that lawsuit."

blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2011/05...

by NineInchNachos on 5/18/2011 @ 8:13am
WINNING!

www.thenewstribune.com/2011/05/17/166931...

by NineInchNachos on 6/28/2011 @ 9:05am
Do we really want more flashy digital billboards? King County and the city of Tacoma are considering whether to allow bright, image-flipping electronic billboards recalling those seen along I-5 near Fife in Pierce County. Critics, including some suburban cities, are fighting the idea of "billboards on amphetamines." crosscut.com/2011/06/28/king-county/2105...

by NineInchNachos on 7/29/2011 @ 2:35pm
ha!

blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2011/07...

by NineInchNachos on 7/29/2011 @ 2:46pm
for posterity www.thenewstribune.com/2011/07/20/175130...

by NineInchNachos on 8/4/2011 @ 8:54pm
Tacoma Weekly is truly on the side of the people.

www.tacomaweekly.com/news/city/the_great...

www.tacomaweekly.com/news/opinion/counci...

by fredo on 8/4/2011 @ 9:02pm
"On the other hand is the 2010 settlement agreement the city worked out with advertising giant Clear Channel Outdoor, which in part calls for the removal of approximately 178 existing billboards in exchange for allowing Clear Channel to erect 10 digital billboards". Tacoma Weekly

I could be wrong but I don't think the 2010 settlement agreement was "worked out with Clear Channel." I think Clear Channel gave the settlement agreement, drawn up by their own lawyers, to the city manager and told him to have the council sign it.

All they had to do was refuse the "agreement" and life would have been so much less complicated.


by NineInchNachos on 8/4/2011 @ 9:39pm
there is some wonderful clear channel lawyer spin (lies) in there. makes me wanna flame-harden a pumpin.

by NineInchNachos on 8/10/2011 @ 8:27am
oh baby

www.thenewstribune.com/2011/08/09/177700...


by NineInchNachos on 8/10/2011 @ 12:07pm
here is one for volume 2...

DubyaFTW: So the taxpayers are going to be forced to bail out the Tacoma city council to the tune of millions, because they have now voted to break a legal agreement they made unanimously just a year ago. This is just bad management, pandering and fiscal waste in extremely lean times. Of course, the idiots like RR Anderson, who don't work for a living, don't care about wasting your money. Their selfish, insane rage and petty class envy compells them to enjoy the theft of prosperity from good people who get up and work hard every day. It's now the parasites versus the host. The fleas versus the dogs. Time for a flea dip, America. [sic]


Read more: www.thenewstribune.com/2011/08/09/177700...

by NineInchNachos on 8/10/2011 @ 12:09pm
thanks joel!

Joel Larson: How about knowing what you are talking about before spewing your ignorant thoughts. RR Anderson does work for a living, he is a very well respected graphical artist that works for a local company located in the heart of downtown. He is a community organizer who saved a park from being boxed in with a fence and created a grassroots community even in the Frost Park Chalk Challenge. He is a founding member of CLAW which not only has created a community of artists, but supports, through scholarships, budding artists to afford to get the education to practice their craft. He is involved in his city to the very core, he communicates with his representatives. You may not see that in his satirical persona online, but don't defame someone you don't know.

Do you think the city also doesn't know that they can counter-sue for unpaid fines? The reason Clear Channel is suing is so that they can leave their signs up even longer and continue to gain their ROI. They have already had 14 years to comply with code. And they continue to say "we don't want to play by the rules."

I have no problem with advertising, there is a time and a place, and billboards aren't the future or the present of advertising. I'd be more than happy to sit down with Clear Channel and find alternative modes of advertising in our City, be it digital bus shelters/benches or kiosks. If Clear Channel doesn't want to play by the rules, I am sure there is another advertising agency out there who would love to.

You seem content to live in a country where corporations dictate our style of life, when it is the people who should dictate their style of life.


by NineInchNachos on 8/10/2011 @ 12:10pm
this is volume 2 gold! thanks Captain!

CaptainBritton: In RR's defense, he was the only one who protested this early on. He asked the council to "look at the map"...Once you look at where these structures were to be placed you realize this is in our neighborhoods. He's actually a pretty decent guy too when you meet him. Don't believe the hate towards him, it's just part of the drama. Tacoma really does need RR...

Joel is absolutely correct with this sentiment "I have no problem with advertising, there is a time and a place, and
billboards aren't the future or the present of advertising. I'd be more
than happy to sit down with Clear Channel and find alternative modes of
advertising in our City, be it digital bus shelters/benches or kiosks"

This isn't about class warfare (or public vs. businesses, either) - It's about classy Tacoma. Yes, classy Tacoma, the future of Tacoma is in it's beauty - and the City just made a big step towards it's true destiny, the hidden gem of the Pacific NW. All of the stakeholders in this fight will benefit in the long run.

by NineInchNachos on 8/10/2011 @ 12:13pm
love this comment by our very own JesseHillFan?

m9078jk3: Advertising makes me sick.We are bombarded by this trash constantly in the mail (junk mail),TV,Radio,Internet (adware (spyware),spam),telemarketing scam nuisances just everywhere all the time.
I can easily see why communist and totalitarian countries existed because of sick,evil and overly exploitative huge nuisance torturous wasteful forms of capitalism.If I were a leader or a politician like Josef Stalin I would throw advertisers in gulag slave labor camps at lifetime hard labor until they passed away (no amnesty and no pardon whatsoever).

There is an apt slogan don't call us we will call you.
A good service or product advertises itself a bad service or product requires the services of a con man


by CaptainBritton on 8/10/2011 @ 1:20pm
We must not hide from conflict. When the city has a legitimate right, we the shareholders and stockholders of that city demand that our rights are defended. Also, the city attorney seems very confident that our new code is defensible. This is the same city attorney who signed off on the previous settlement, so my faith is that she has really done the checking to make sure that clear channel really doesn't have a legitimate stance.

Clear Channel is dead in the water, and bluffing. They have no case here. They will lose, and they know it.

If you are a stockholder of Clear Channel Outdoor right now, with the recent plunge, do you REALLY want to approve yet another couple million going to another court case you are gonna lose, or do you abandon ship and sail for greener seas? CCO is losing nation-wide. The market has changed. They are dead in the water.

Meanwhile, Tacoma has been named the hottest spot to buy real estate in the nation by the WSJ. So, Tacoma is winning big-time by investing in a livability issue like this. Yes, investment. It will return dividends to you and me, stockholders of the great city of Tacoma.

Read more: www.thenewstribune.com/2011/08/09/177700...

by NineInchNachos on 9/6/2011 @ 10:03pm
maybe is a good thing that the dude who had such a boner for Clear Channel billboard advertising retired from JayRay... the younger generation reveals something pretty interesting in today's #BEchat on the twitter:

twitter.com/#!/JayRayAdsPR/status/111214...

which for posterity says "We have found Facebook ads to do the trick on a low budget with local audience. #BEChat" - JayRay Ads and PR

which is was an answer maybe from another interesting tweet...

twitter.com/#!/digestiveDR/status/111214...

"When you place ads do you see the media brand as something your clients are aligning with?"

or...

www.tweetdeck.com/twitter/emreiter/~ouwy...

"Beyond audience, do you consider the reputation or brand of the media itself in your selection? RT @JayRayAdsPR: @emreiter It's not about being everywhere. It's about being in the right places. Impt. to know audience (esp. when buying radio) #BEChat"


EAT IT CLEAR CHANNEL!

by troysworktable on 9/6/2011 @ 10:16pm
I'm sure I'm showing (a) my age; (b) my ignorance; (c) my lack of Twitterquette; (d) all of the above; but what is #BEChat? I cannot figure out what it means.

by NineInchNachos on 9/6/2011 @ 10:23pm
heh. not a problem! #BEchat is a hashtag invented by the Business Examiner for weekly 'social media' hangers-on to hob-nob. Like a virtual happy-hour for business goons.

check it out!

twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23BEchat

you see it happen on my twitter feed conveniently every Tacomic Tuesday. I like to rib on them.

by NineInchNachos on 9/23/2011 @ 1:11pm
CLEAR CHANNEL BILLBOARD UPDATE! blog.thenewstribune.com/street/2011/09/2...

by NineInchNachos on 9/23/2011 @ 1:23pm
also www.kplu.org/post/digital-billboards-cou...

by NineInchNachos on 1/22/2012 @ 7:49pm
atomic bullshit alert!  
www.thenewstribune.com/2012/01/22/199362...

by NineInchNachos on 3/9/2012 @ 8:35pm
the ents are going to war. 
www.thenewstribune.com/2012/03/09/206066...

by NineInchNachos on 3/28/2012 @ 12:55pm
THIS MEANS WAR! 
i.feedtacoma.com/KevinFreitas/tacoma-bil...

by NineInchNachos on 8/14/2012 @ 9:07pm
update... www.thenewstribune.com/2012/08/14/225587...


by NineInchNachos on 1/9/2013 @ 3:23pm
so the study everybody was waiting for has been released...

conclusion? 

digital billboards distract drivers

www.scenic.org/billboards-a-sign-control...



by tacoma_1 on 1/9/2013 @ 3:45pm
I'm against visual pollution too. No just air, water and soil. 

by cisserosmiley on 1/9/2013 @ 4:06pm
If its legal to put giant tv's on the side of the road, why not just put a tv inside every car ??? My 2013 campaign slogan...A TV in Every Car!

by tacoma_1 on 1/9/2013 @ 4:36pm
Watching TV while driving would distract people too much from their primary tasks of texting and drinking while driving. Therefore it would never catch on.

by JesseHillFan on 1/9/2013 @ 7:09pm
Wouldn't Potato Guns/Cannons be a lot cheaper,easier to carry and use against a bad digital billboard than a pumpkin gun/cannon?