=================================================== A Brief History of "The Big Billboard Fight"
By Brian Bates ----------------------------------------------------- Introduction. -----------------------------------------------------
Early in 1995 a group of community activists incorporated Scenic Minnesota as a Minnesota non-profit and sought and received 501(C)(3) status from the I.R.S. We then approached others who had taken an interest in the issue of billboards.
Enthusiastically, and somewhat naively, we wrote up a standard resolution calling for a ban on the construction of billboards in Saint Paul and the elimination of the existing billboards through amortization. Amortization was available under state law at that time and is a municipal tool for removing nonconforming structures over time at no cost to the city. Our hope was to amass community support and eventually converted that support into political influence at City Hall.
----------------------------------------------------- Neighborhoods, Politics, and Legislation. -----------------------------------------------------
A) Mid 1995 to Late 1996 - Saint Paul's Community Councils and Other Neighborhood Groups
Armed with the 15-minute "Signs, Signs" video supplied by Scenic America we approached the community councils. Eleven community councils passed resolution to not only ban the construction of billboards but to remove existing billboards. Two others voted to ban the construction of new billboards and two considered, but failed to pass, a resolution to restrict billboards. Several other influential business and community organizations also passed resolution to ban billboards and remove existing billboards.
B) Mid - Late 1997 - The First Ordinances.
Armed with the support of the community councils and other neighborhood organizations we looked for a councilmember to author an ordinance to reduce the number of billboards. Roberta (Bobbi) Megard, who was formerly an administrator with a community council, was a logical choice. With some prodding, she agreed to author an ordinance. In December 1997, shortly before her term ended, she introduced an ordinance which would place a moratorium on the construction of billboards and order the planning Commission to study the matter. The ordinance passed unanimously (7-0). However, later that month Mayor Norm Coleman vetoed the ordinance saying the measure was anti-business and an overreaction billboard concerns. A new City Council was seated in January 1998 with four of seven new faces. An override of the Mayor's veto was not even attempted.
Instead of the veto override attempt, which lacked sufficient support, newly elected councilmember Jay Benanav devised another approach: 1) a citizen committee would be empaneled to study the issue and make recommendations and 2) community councils could take action to enact moratoria in their districts. This approach was a combination of an unwise industry staple: study, study, study and a wise deference to the community councils where neighborhood opposition to billboards could be maximized and the influence of billboard lobbyists could be minimized.
Slowly, over time, community council after community council took the simple steps to enact a moratorium in neighborhood after neighborhood.
The citizens committee was, by design, a disaster which consumed a great deal of time and accomplished little. After more than a year the results of the committee's work were presented to the Planning Commission which said they would study the matter themselves.
But the moratoria provided some real deterrent to continued billboard construction.
----------------------------------------------------- The Initiative - March through November 1999. -----------------------------------------------------
Understanding that the City Council did not have the required interest to enact serious billboard controls, activists turned to the initiative process. Saint Paul's charter allows citizens to initiate an ordinance, however the process is daunting. The process requires the collection of the signatures of Saint Paul registered voters equal in number to 8 percent of those who voted in the previous Mayoral election. We needed 5,600 signatures verified by the County Clerk 120 days before the November 1999 election.
We submitted the petitions to Ramsey County for tallying. We lost a significant number, maybe 30%, of the signatures when Ramsey County staff compared our petitions with voter registrations. But we prevailed with days to spare.
The petition created an ordinance which would prohibit new billboard construction and eliminate neighborhood billboards through nuisance. We defined neighborhood billboards as all billboards not adjacent to state or federal highways. In that way we avoided any conflict between any local ordinance resulting from our petition and state and federal laws which protected billboards adjacent to state and federal highways. We estimated that half of the City's billboards were neighborhood billboards. We estimated the City had 625 total sign faces.
After collecting the required number of signatures the initiative process required the City Council to enact the ordinance as stated in the petition or put the measure on the next ballot.
The Council did not enact the ordinance so we then had to gear up for the four-month ballot campaign. We registered a campaign organization: Scenic Saint Paul Campaign. The billboard industry registered their opposition organization: Stop the Ban.
We set a goal of raising $30,000.00. We ended up raising half that amount. The billboard industry spent around $500,000.00 depending on how you counted.
During the campaign the billboard initiative gained a great deal of press, however the billboard initiative was one of two initiatives that year. While the ballpark referendum lost, it, of course, was the focus of the majority of the initiative press reports. At least one press account referred to the billboard initiative as the "other initiative" on the ballot.
The industry spent its money on lawyers and a public relations firm. The industry bought full page color ads in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, sent several pieces of direct mail to all Saint Paul households and used radio, TV, and billboards to get their well researched message out. From then on, the public's attitude toward the issue changed quickly and decisively. By election day we, and a lot of other people, were surprised that St. Paulites voted 53-47 percent not to remove half the billboards in town.
----------------------------------------------------- The Aftermath of the Ballot - Picking up the Pieces. -----------------------------------------------------
During and after the initiative campaign there was a lot of billboard activity at City Hall. Community councils continued to ask for moratoria, the Planning Commission was studying the benefits and detriments of urban billboards, law suits were commenced over particular billboards, and, of course, the City Council was aware of the result, not only of the ballot initiative, but the industry's campaign spending and tactics.
All of this activity slowly changed attitudes on the City Council, the Planning Commission, and with City Staff. As noted above, as an alternative to the city-wide moratorium enacted and vetoed in December 1997, the City Council enacted legislation allowing community councils to apply for moratoria in their districts. When these applications arrived at City Hall the City Council was hard pressed to turn them away. One by one, or in groups, these moratoria were accepted by the City Council, enacted, and made part of the zoning code. Soon, approximately three quarters of the city were covered by moratoria and the time seemed ripe to again press for a city-wide prohibition on billboards.
Finally, about a year after the failed ballot initiative the City Council enacted a city-wide prohibition on billboards. The wording is simplistic and important: Advertising signs prohibited. No advertising signs are permitted in any zoning district in the city. The purposes of this prohibition are to enhance views of the natural and built environments of the city, to improve aesthetically the fusion of residential and commercial areas, to promote community pride on the part of property owners, to encourage beautification and investment in the city, to protect property values, and to reduce cluttered and chaotic signage, which draws attention away from the identification signs of businesses and institutions located in the city. (Zoning Code, Section 66.214, 11-15-00)
----------------------------------------------------- Enforcement and Current Status of Struggle -----------------------------------------------------
But the enactment of the city-wide prohibition on billboards was not the end of Saint Paul's struggle with billboards but rather a significant milestone. In May 30, 1998, a serious wind storm blew through Saint Paul. Several billboards were blown over or the sign faces were blown off. One billboard owner argued his billboard was really a business sign because of its proximity to the business advertised. The Planning Commission and City Council agreed. Scenic Minnesota successfully sued the City to keep the billboard from being rebuilt. The City allowed other wind- damaged billboards to be rebuilt without permits. Again Scenic Minnesota was forced to sue the City. Again Scenic Minnesota prevailed. On other occasions the industry sued the City over individual billboards.
We quickly learned that we could not count on the City's administrative departments nor the City Council to enforce the new restrictions on billboards. The record has been mixed in the last couple of years with a few billboards coming down and others which we feel should have been forcibly removed still in place. The City has undertaken an inventory of the billboards and will begin charging an annual fee for each. Institutionally, we seem to be better off, yet we still have more that 600 sign faces in Saint Paul.
A few years ago we were intent on using amortization as a tool to remove St. Paul billboards. Even the less supportive Planning Commission was coming around to our way of thinking. Amortization allows a city to remove a non-comforming uses without paying out money but rather allowing the use to remian for a reasonable number of years before being removed. Amortization is the traditional tool for removing billboards and has been held constitutional by the state Supreme Court. In response the industry turned to the Legislature and removed this municipal tool from use throughout the state. More recently, in response to a St. Paul ordinance which disallows the repair of billboards, the industry again turned to the Legislature which enacted a statute alllowing repair of non-conforming uses. Most troubling is that when the industry approaches the Legislature it is well disguised and it is doubtful that the legislators understand that they are voting on a city's ability to deal with the urban blight of billboards. (Few suburbs have billboards.)
We have supported legislation at the capitol that would create a very narrow exception in the amortization statute for removing St. Paul billboards. That legislation has had the support of the entire St. Paul delegation and City officials. We, as a community, need to support this legislation until it passes.
=================================================
_____________________________________________
To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
