Re: [StPaul] Scenic Minnesota Redux

[brian bates]

Several points: 1) about a third of the money were fees collected from 
the billboard industry - the money was essentially returned; 2) the law 
suit which held that certain billboards could be repaired involved a 
city ordinance which has been in place since at least 1988, long before 
Scenic Minnesota came to be. The industry sued the city for enforcing 
its ordinance. And while SM sought to intervene, it was not allowed to 
(might not have lost had we been allowed). So none of the law suit money 
had anything to do with SM. 3) the bigger economic issue, of course, has 
to do with the cost billboards impose on our community. Billboards are 
not benign. Billboards take value from properties throughout the City 
which in turn retards property tax collections. It is not happenstance 
that most suburbs do not have billboards, developers do not like them 
because they know their properties are negatively affected. Billboards 
also depress tourism.  4) But more importantly they are an indication of 
a community which has less community pride than it might otherwise have. 
As folks come to St. Paul from the south on I-35 they are not greeted by 
a sign saying  "St. Paul - the Capitol City." They are greeted by two 
huge billboards hawking whatever.

Don't believe everything you read. The billboard industry had nothing to 
do with the change in state law - sure I believe that - when pigseye flies.

Brian Bates, Mac/grove
Paul Kuettel wrote:
Hi All!
Recently, based on an isolated action of the City Attorney in settling 
with Clear Channel over rebuilding a downed billboard (apparently one 
which was suspected of having been vandalized) I posted a GENERAL 
comment about how the anti-billboard group Scenic Minnesota had cost 
the taxpayers alot of money.

Am happy to report that I am not alone in this opinion.  In today's PP 
appears an op-ed by Alyssa Schlander who sayeth:

"Scenic Minnesota's fruitless quest to destroy outdoor advertising in 
St. Paul has cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. The law 
changes they speak of are much bigger than their narrow interests. The 
Legislature did the right thing in ensuring that property owners are 
allowed to take care of their properties"

I appreciate the passion of the members of SM, but sometimes good 
intent foments unintended harm.

Such, I feel, is what SM has done in it's quest to overturn the 1st 
Amendment in favor of being able to enjoy what they feel are "nice 
views."

I expect that 1st Amendment reference to be thrown back in my face, so 
I will say in advance that it was someone simplistic and hyperbolic, 
and a subtle dig at the way extremists employ such oversimplifications 
to divide and inflame.

Keep tilting at windmills.  St. Paulites will just have to swallow the 
costs of fighting you.

Cheers!
PK
Falcon Heights
http://wogsblog.blogspot.com
_____________________________________________
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/


_____________________________________________
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/