BLOG: Leave No Brick Unpainted...
Sam Adams
This morning, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Measure 37, thereby ensuring that Measure 37 will continue to have a powerful impact on land use regulations in Portland.
City Council has recently seen what I think was a terrible unintended consequence of Measure 37: applications for larger-than-life billboards on Portland buildings.
The City of Portland’s sign code outlines the size and placement of large signs, billboards and advertisements, including those on the side of buildings.
Because the code limits the opportunity for building owners to lease outside wall spaces for advertisements, some building owners or sign companies are filing Measure 37 claims suggesting that the sign code effectively limits the value of their property.
Four of these billboard cases (Read the Oregonian: Billboard companies file Measure 37 claims) came to Council earlier this month. There are potentially hundreds of cases that could be filed.
Council rejected all 4 of the Measure 37 billboard cases, but a circuit court judge may find that the city has an obligation to grant a waiver or compensation.
Look out, Portland, in light of Measure 37, there is only so much we can do to prevent what Portlanders have consistently called “visual pollution.”
Ideas?
Posted by Sam Adams on February 21, 2006
(22) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (1)
Filed Under Blog, Front Page, Good Government, Livability & Environment
Comments by site visitors
Well, mmmarvel, I DO mind billboards and the one-sided visual pollution they represent. In their case, the "social engineering" is being done by and large by capitalists, with the intention of persuading people to BUY STUFF. Personally, I think this crass use of space shouldn't just be regulated, it should be totally abolished. (Unless, of course, the city comes up with a novel program that would give large sums of money to graffiti artists and public muralists to simply purchase space on buildings and billboards, thereby levelling the playing field, a la voter-owned elections. You'd love that, huh?!)
Thankfully, most people in Portland support the kind of "social engineering" that results in more and better mass transit options, plenty of greenspace, bike lanes, density, etc.-- as opposed to the "social engineering" you favor, which would only give us smoggier air, dirtier rivers, more roads, more cars (without any sort of fuel mileage standards, right?!), worse congestion, bigger prisons, extinct salmon, billboards on every corner, elections bought by the business class, et al.
Thank you for exposing your myopic, ass-backwards, right-wing, logically- fallacious agenda for all of us to see.
And thank you, Sam, for doing the best you can in such a difficult environment.
Posted by: Andrew | Feb 21, 2006 10:28:51 PM
Sam,
How can you be against "larger than life" billboards and the "visual pollution" and yet be for giant buildings blocking views in the So What district and a tram running overhead of people's property. Your logic seems suspect.....
Posted by: Jon | Feb 22, 2006 12:18:36 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm a VERY liberty minded individual. The fact that someone cannot put a graphical representation (whether it is an add, a nude woman, or a piece of artwork is irrelevant) on the side of their building is insanely anti-liberty, private property rights, and seriously deprives an individual to not just their property's use but the use of freedom of speach.
I happen to find adds a great representation of society by and large. These so called evil "capitalists" are merely reflecting what catches our attention. They are selling to us what we want - if they weren't the adds and the suggestions wouldn't work.
So besides all of this, let us take another example. I'm personally offended by a lot of the artwork. It is of psychologically and mentally impotent people that much of this work comes from. I find it absolutely detestable, and under that logic it should be banned from public view. I don't care who owns the building I want it removed from every ediface in the city of Portland.
Seriously though, the city needs to run the city. Not businesses & individuals advertising ideas, budgets, and other information.
On another note. I love the tram & transportation choices. It is why I'm here. Keep building them. When and IF peak oil strikes, there will be a lot more people thanking this city - not that there isn't already.
I would however like to see ALL transit privatized.
-sarcasm on- But unfortunately that would impact the "poor" (i.e. sub-50k a year income earners) too seriously. :( -sarcasm off-
Posted by: adron | Feb 22, 2006 1:23:10 PM
Andrew - thanks for the 'enlightening' discussion. However, my point was truly highlighted by Adron. What doesn't bother me, bothers you. What doesn't bother you, bothers me. In either case why should the city side with one or the other of us? Is that the city's job? Is it in their charter?
I could go ahead and slander you with some smear name calling like you did to me; but I'd rather show a bit more class.
Thanks so much for the discussion.
Posted by: mmmarvel | Feb 22, 2006 2:17:41 PM
Really most people don't mind the large billboards, even my religious friends can overlook the gay.com ad on the side of Embers. Again, I think 300+ foot towers blocking Mt Hood views are visual pollution, but we allow that.
I thought freedom of speech would trump aesthetics? Once we let government define aesthetics (ie what looks good and what doesnt), I think we are surrending a lot of our individuality.
Posted by: Steve | Feb 22, 2006 9:10:27 PM
mmmarvel, I'm glad to see that you dropped the one-sided "social engineering" b.s., thanks. You obviously can't back up the basis of your argument. And I'll say it again: your reactionary “roads cops and bad guys” agenda deserves every one of the adjectives I gave it.
I think billboards should be heavily regulated for the same reason I think people should not be allowed to cut down big old trees on their property; think the city should facilitate the creation of dense urban neighborhoods and work to prevent sprawl and preserve farmland; support design guidelines for new architecture; think the city should continue funding shelters for homeless kids; and, speaking of class, think the city should be leveling our unbalanced playing field so that people can more easily get elected to office based on merit rather than access to money. Large-scale, industrial capitalism has been an unmitigated social and ecological disaster, and until it collapses --which it will, someday-- I’ll grudgingly support government (particularly locally, in places like Portland) as the only theoretical protection we have against this rapacious economic system that often masquerades behind words and phrases like “liberty” and “this land of free choice” --usually for those who own property, of course.
Adron, can you explain how someone can be both psychologically AND mentally impotent?! Would the folks who created those cool Rock Star soda building-sized billboards I've seen around town lately qualify?
Posted by: Andrew | Feb 22, 2006 10:00:31 PM
When viewing old historical photographs of Portland, one of the more interesting characteristics in them is the old advertising signage painted on sides of many of the old brick and wood buildings. Advertising can be viewed as form of art, and it is art that is not two percent shelled out by taxpayers for junk and scrap metal plopped down in places where it looks out of scale and place just because some weirdo commission calls it art. Furthermore, I would not consider most billboard type advertising as social engineering either. Yes it delivers a message and can have an influence about the products and services we freely choose to purchase, but that is what freedom of speech is all about. That is very different and unlike the social engineering life style changes the City of Portland, through the use and waste of tax dollars, attempts to force on people and often takes away or limits somebody’s freedom of choice.
As a kid growing up in Portland, I was fascinated by the real neon signs that danced and moved and reflected on the Willamette River and along Broadway downtown. Pacific Power had a four sided sign a top of their building, all the theaters had bright light marquis, the Oregon Journal Building had neon lighted towers, there was a billboard sized Black Label Beer sign on east side that reflected on the water, and there were even large neon billboards at the east end of the Ross Island Bridge and at 12th and Sandy Boulevard. Today the majority of that beauty in neon is gone, replaced by blank walls, view blocking tall buildings and in some cases too many trees that block the architecture of artfully designed structures making our City simply too sterile of diversity. Personally I welcome the idea of this advertiser type of non-taxpayer funded art returning to Portland so it can be enjoyed by those who can appreciate it, and maybe even give a kick start to adding higher wage jobs and a more vibrant economy.
Posted by: Terry parker | Feb 22, 2006 10:25:25 PM
While M37 will crimp zoning a bit, it will not allow health or safety dangers and it respects federal mandates.
As to zoning: Zoning used to protect our neighborhoods from some one plopping down some high density crap next door by limiting density. But, the planners turned zoning against us by using it to FORCE high density crap into just about every neighborhood.
My hope is that allowing building outside of the UGB will relieve pressure to build giant, crappy apartments into our neighborhoods.
It might even make housing more affordable due to more supply coming on the market (econ 101 which seems to be beyond most planner's comprehension)
Might also slow the increase in traffic congestion as more new people locate outside of Portland and find jobs near their new homes and have no need to drive in my neighborhood. (Except for Metro's insane idea of putting housing in Damascus and jobs in Hillsboro.)
AND if we had less pressure for development in Porkland, we would not need to feed Homer & his ilk millions in tax breaks etc.
(I reap no income form city planning, city policy or smart growth, can my critics say the same?)
Thanks
JK
www.saveportland.com
Posted by: jim karlock | Feb 23, 2006 5:34:49 AM
Andrew -
I didn't drop the 'social engineering' line of thought; I didn't have to, you are living, walking, talking proof that it does exist and some folks buy it hook, line and sinker. About the biggest thing that annoys me, and I suspect others, about you is how you totally ignore and disrespect arguments.
The arguments are about if the city has in it's charter the regulation of billboards. I contend that it doesn't, along with many other areas that it sticks it's nose in that it's charter wasn't designed for. Your entire "argument" is that you like what they are doing and would do more of it. Maybe we should change the name to 'Andrewville'; that's not in the city charter either, but you might be "like" that too.
If you think the city should waste our money in the fashion that it presently is, then the city charter needs to be changed to reflect that wish/idea. The changing of the charter would need to go up before a vote of the people, something government hates to do - they are basically pretty scared of the public; pandering to them just long enough to get them to vote.
Posted by: mmmarvel | Feb 23, 2006 6:06:59 AM
There are already numerous billboards on the sides of buildings, so what will change? What could kind of billboard could someone put on the side of a building that is any more offensive than what is on the grain storage building on the east side of the steel bridge. Perhaps the city should consider an ordinance that addresses the Measure 37 issue or addresses the issue of billboards on the sides of all buildings
Posted by: G. Marechal | Feb 23, 2006 10:53:49 AM
One pertinent fact in this matter is that there is a growing body of research that shows that exposing children to commercial messages has negative effects on their development.
For links to research by the American Psychological Association, Gov’t Accountability Office and the Consumer’s Union report on “Captive Kids” check out the Commercialism in Education Research Unit at Arizona State www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/ceru.htm.
Our government has a role in regulating commerce that harms children.
My opinion is that billboards will have a negative impact on the City. If they are allowed, they should be regulated so an offsetting social good is created at the same time.
Posted by: Gretchen | Feb 23, 2006 11:11:08 AM
Social engineering does have advantages... parks would not be a profit-making priority. Nor would planning of any sort. Both of those things I appreciate. Human nature is selfish and short-term; planning can only mitigate that so far. M37 is a win for human nature and a serious loss for our future.
But on to Billboards: They have a high social cost. I'd suggest the City tax them, monthly and aggressively, and funnel the revenue into schools. That would give them something they currently lack: socially redeeming value.
No, strictly speaking, public education does live in a separate bureaucracy, but if the City's government is there to keep the City itself functional, solid public schools are a critical (if slightly longer-term) element. Not one citizen who has kids of school age will object to more funding; parents happen to be a minority in this state now, and so lose out to folks who would rather imprison than educate for the future. If you think there are potholes now, just wait.
I have a kid in school; if M37 gives billboards rights, let them also benefit our future.
Posted by: charlie weiss | Feb 23, 2006 1:09:19 PM
I agree with the idea of taxing billboards for schools, but it should not end with billboard advertising alone. About six years ago I proposed an idea that went nowhere that would tax all forms of local advertising to fund schools. Included would be newspaper and yellow page advertising, commercial signage, and local radio and TV commercials. If you look at the tax revenue collected at the state level in Oregon, only about six percent comes from big business. Funding for schools is currently placed on the backs of individuals and small businesses. An advertising tax would be a small step in a positive direction to balance that inequity.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Feb 23, 2006 3:34:13 PM
I think mmmarvel misses the fact that most Portlanders want to live in a great city. Most endorse the regulation he abhorrs. And what makes a good place to live... Paris? regulated, Rome? regulated, Venice? regulated. How about some regulation-free cities? They must be wonderful places, like Houston, Texas, and Mexico City. Even Houston must "suffer" under air pollution regs. Mexico City, with choking smog, is the truest representation of capitalism.
I'd rather be here.
Doug Klotz
Posted by: Doug Klotz | Feb 23, 2006 6:15:56 PM
And what makes a good place to live... Paris?
Hey, have you ever been to Paris and seen some of the stuff they slap on the walls. Or better yet, look at the ads that people frame and hang in their houses. I am confused how any great art was ever conceived with by being regulated.
Regulation only means a few get to set the standards for many at least with respect to aesthetics.
Posted by: Steve | Feb 23, 2006 7:29:46 PM
Doug:
What leads you to believe that "most endorse the regulation he abhors"? I think most of the "full-building" ads downtown are much more artful than most of the "2% for public art" in Portland. If the billboard industry would be willing to eliminate those garish electronic signs (so bright they hurt my eyes), I would deregulate all billboards, except for safety and view blocking concerns.
How do you quantify "most" without an election or very comprehensive survey?
I would like to prohibit smoking on public sidewalks and parks. Better yet, if you want to smoke in your car, how about a law that requires you to keep your windows rolled up. Most people don't smoke, and would likely benefit from my proposals. Does that make it good public policy?
I'm confident that Parisians toss their cigarette butts into the street with even greater frequency than Portlanders. And I won't even mention the canine problem. Suffice it to say their scoop/leash laws are more liberal than ours.
Paris is not the model we should aspire to become. We can do better than Paris in many respects (their maghreb ghettos come to mind), and will never come close to Paris in many others.
It's like comparing a fine burgundy with Welch's grape juice: they're both made of red grapes, but they couldn't be more different. If we tried to make grape juice from their best grapes, we would likely find out that Welch's makes better juice.
Posted by: Alice | Feb 23, 2006 8:49:09 PM
I am afraid that the real point is that until we as consumers put our dollars where our conversation is, more and more advertising will fill our every waking moment. The real question is, can we keep the pressure on until that awareness dawns. It seems to me that most of the problems of Measure 37 are not about planning, they are about the potential of making a profit at the expense of everyone else. So, too, I think, is the question of billboards being free speech when they are really about advertising products; Tri-Met allowing its buses to become moving billboards; schools selling vendor rights for food they provide; renaming of public sports arenas by selling naming rights; wearing manufacturer logos on the outside of clothing and shoes; and providing free internet sites if you just allow it to be half filled with spam/advertising messages. I wonder sometimes how much of it we still actually see, and when it will become too much. If we stopped buying from billboard advertisers and let them know we were doing it, we might have some effect.
Other than that, the only way I can think of to get at the billboard issue is to deal with the structure and not the billboard advertisement. What if we had structural requirements and siting regulations that would define the structure - how wide it could be, the materials it had to use, the sight line limits, setback requirements, etc.? We might also require a certain type of landscaping and maintenance.
A question: why were billboards moved into the land use code in the first place? That is a fairly recent change and I am not sure what rationale was used. If it is not in the land use code, it is not Measure 37 eligible.
Finally, I think it would be interesting to challenge the removal of zoning requirements from the established land use process, with its separate legal system. I am obviously not wise enough to understand how zoning, the home of land use rules and regulations, can be redefined into a circuit court process by "request" of the land owner.
In addition, billboards are placed on private property for very little monthly rent to the landowner. Is there a way in which the City could "buy out" the rental rights on that property and keep the billboard from being sited. Kind of an easement for the public good.
I am glad you are thinking of ways to deal with this as a future problem driven by a single industry which has long been less than a good citizen in this community. As the former Chair of the Multnomah County Billboard Advisory Committee in the 60s, I wish you luck.
Bonny
Posted by: Bonny | Feb 24, 2006 10:26:23 AM
Sam, as I understand things, the sign code doesn't reduce the value of the property itself, but simply the potential of the owner to make additional revenue from their property. It seems that property would sell for the same dollar amount with the sign code as it would without it, so how can they say the code is limiting their property value? I'm no economist, so I could be totally wrong here, but it doesn't seem like potential revenue necessarily translates into actual property value. Situations like not being able to sub-divide and sell off parcels, or criteria for what is acceptable to build on a certain parcel, are obviously M37 issues. But billboards seem to be outside the scope of M37.
Posted by: Stephen | Feb 24, 2006 11:43:17 AM
I am against bill boards that create either a traffic hazard by taking people's eyes from the road too long, or that create another safety issue by giving criminals places to hide to do their terrible "work". We are hit with ads in every area of life. Is it really necessary for businesses to create less safety by using extra large or electronics billboards?
Posted by: Deanna H | Feb 25, 2006 12:24:08 PM
I wish we could do away with all billboards in Oregon. In Vermont, one doesn't see any billboards. Without this visual clutter, the mind is free to see the beauty of the sky, trees, rivers, and architecture. Portland and Oregon are beautiful places. Let's show them off by outlawing billboards.
Posted by: Diane | Feb 28, 2006 8:22:29 AM
I wish we could do away with all trees, rivers, and achitechture. Without this visual clutter, the mind is free to see the beauty of advertisements. Portland and Oregon are ugly places. Let's fix that by outlawing trees, rivers, and achitechture.
Posted by: Anthony | Mar 3, 2006 6:37:42 PM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
"Larger than Life Billboards" - um, aren't most billboards larger than life? If they weren't, we probably wouldn't notice them.
Personally, I've never minded billboards, I don't mind someone using the side of their building as advertisement space. In this land of free choice, if I like the advertisment and the product I'll buy it, if not I won't (and they'll get the idea that the ad isn't working).
Quit trying to social engineer things! Take care of things like public safety (meaning restore the police budget), take care of roads, take the bad guys off the streets. Quit wasting money on the tram, light rail, education (which isn't the city's responsibility), paying for political campaigns, etc. Get BACK to the business of running the city like you're suppose to. Not running it like you imagine it to be.
Posted by: mmmarvel | Feb 21, 2006 6:34:21 PM