Vote?

I'm predicting a 4-1 vote against revising the billboard ordinance in the County Commission tonight.

That's 'cause Joe Bowser is a rebel who's beholden to no one, don'tcha know.

UPDATE: Kevin breaks the news that Fairway has withdrawn their request for a vote on the amendment tonight. I don't know what that means, but John Schelp seems to think it's good news.

If i recall, their defeat in City Council was accompanied by some discussion that they had to wait at least a year before bringing it up again. I assume that by not having a vote tonight at the Commission, they can come back to that body at a time of their own choosing?

UPDATE: Over at the N&O Jim Wise writes "(T)o raise the issue again would require a formal request, paying fees and going through the review process from square one."

Obviously, the money's not going to be an issue for an outfit like Fairway, but the whole formal request and review process is going to take a lot of time. They've invested two years in this so far, so it's hard to see this as anything other than throwing in the towel.

Chalk up one for the good guys.

Continue reading Vote?

The dog ate my homework

The Indy and BCR are reporting that Keystone Kops Law Firm K&L Gates, attorneys for Fairway Outdoor Advertising, are requesting a postponement of Monday's scheduled public hearing and vote by the BoCC on Fairway's billboard rezoning request. The postponement request comes on the heels of Fairway's loss at the City Council on Monday night.

The Indy sez that Byker has concern's about the BoCC's ability to manage two contentious issues in one night.

The reason for the request is to relieve county commissioners of having to deal with two very contentious issues—changes to the billboard ordinance, and a rezoning case that would allow a controversial development—on the same night, he said. Both are scheduled for public hearings during Monday's meeting, which begins at 7 p.m. A meeting just about that controversial development, 751 South, pushed past midnight two weeks ago.

"I don't think it's fair to county commissioners to have to deal with both on the same night," Byker said. He indicated there was no other reason for asking for the delay, including any benefit to the firm itself, by giving it more time to prepare.

This, of course, is the same Patrick Byker who told NCDOT that his other client, SDD, Inc., was giving a 41 foot wide strip of land as an easement to the highway people to "show good faith," while his client was telling newspaper reporters that the easement was created specifically to invalidate a protest petition that could very well derail the rezoning SDD needs for the project.

Given that, we can assume that Mr. Byker probably had other concerns on his mind than the well-being of our County commissioners.

Continue reading The dog ate my homework

7-0 baby

Just back from a quick 2 day trip to Wrightsville Beach (see last week's series of kvetches about Priceline.com) and i hear our City Council unanimously rejected Fairway Outdoor Advertising and K&L Gates request to amend Durham zoning regs to allow some of them newfangled 60 foot digital TVs on our highways.

Here's the thing that caught my eye, from Ray's piece in the Herald-Sun:

"Honestly, we came to Durham first because we thought Durham was the most open-minded and progressive city" in the Triangle, said Paul Hickman, Fairway's area general manager.

The word progressive also came up a lot in last week's presentation to the County Commissioners, also stage managed by K&L Gates on behalf of their client Southern Durham Development, Inc., for a rezoning application for the 751 South (nee 751 Assemblage) development.

So in addition to the pattern here, i'm wondering just who is defining "progressive" here, and why are we letting them do that?

More thoughts about what might constitute "progressive" in Durham later this week, after i soothe my sunburn.

Continue reading 7-0 baby

Perhaps the stupidest argument ever

Fairway Outdoor Advertising executive Paul Hickman, who tried to pull a fast one last week by representing the views of three Durham citizens as those of the city's Partners Against Crime community, returns this week with a piece in the Herald-Sun that attempts to argue that new billboards in Durham will do just about everything except cure male pattern baldness and erectile dysfunction, although we can assume that the new billboards tell us how to cure those problems (well, those of us who need help, anyway.)

My life is too short to spend the time necessary to pick apart Hickman's arguments point by point, although if any of you want to in the comments, feel free.

Here's my favorite, though:

Other public service messages would include a community calendar announcing all of the festivals and events in the area, which would in turn benefit Durham's economy.

Right, Paul.

Because in a community like Durham, where over a thousand people turn out to an undavertised event like a food truck rodeo in a quickie mart parking lot on a Sunday morning, the way to find out what's going on in town is by 8 second messages flashed up on digital billboards along our highways.

Hey, anything that will keep people from posting to and reading their local neighborhood listservs, where much of the discussion these days centers around defeating Fairway's billboard proposal, right?

Here's a clue, Paul. All those festivals and shit you're gonna promote on your digital billboards in 8 second chunks? Guess what? We're the ones who make them happen, we're the ones who tell our friends about them on the listservs, on our blogs, on Facebook, and yes, when we meet each other at the bar, at the grocery store, at a potluck, at church, just about every place where people in the community meet.

Except when we're driving in our cars. Don't meet too many people that way.

Perhaps if you hung out with other folks in Durham besides your attorney you'd understand that.

Continue reading Perhaps the stupidest argument ever

Updating again - sleazeball tactics

Another email from Wanda Boone, and i have to say it sounds as though she understands the first law of holes.

Dear Fellow Citizens,

Mistake number 1.

I naively carried a message regarding the above as requested by the Facilitator of City-Wide PAC about a very important vote that took place several months ago.

Although information was provided to PAC 1 via Melvin Whitley about the important safety features of electronic billboards, it is obvious that PAC 1 might not have received all of the information at the disposal of others. It is also obvious that there are still silos between us as PAC members. I suggest that a larger conversation should have taken place during City-wide PAC which would have been a great use of our time.

To make sure that this happens, I would like to invite members of PAC 2 as well as Mike Woodard to attend our next PAC 1 meeting to present the information that you have.

My sincere apologies for any misunderstanding, confusion or seeming misrepresentation. It was unintential on my part. I have spent 39 years in Durham and a lifetime of building a trusted reputation in the community that I have no desire to see end on this issue.

I hope that both my apology and invitation are accepted.
Best Regards,
Wanda
Wanda Boone

Now, let's go back to Ms. Boone's earlier email and look at this quote:

3. The request for me to speak came via Harold Chestnut, City-wide PAC to voice the result of City-wide PAC's vote (period) in favor of the electronic billboard "for the safety of our Durham Community". The majority of PAC representatives voted yes during the City-wide PAC meeting in question and the process was conducted fairly, as overseen by Harold. I carried the message.

emphasis added

Jumping ahead, here's an email from the PAC 2 list today, addressed to PAC 2 co-facilitator Bill Anderson:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think this is kind of important: as far as I've heard, PAC2 -- the organization that meets monthly at the DPS Training Center -- has not formally voted on the issue.

In the future, if a similar situation were to arise at the Citywide PAC meeting, I would suggest making a motion to table the question until the emissaries from each of the five PAC groups have received instructions from their respective memberships.

And Bill's response:

There's nothing overly "fine" about your important point. I did try to table it in that way, and every other way I could think of at the time.
The attorney representing Fairway said there wasn't enough time, so the Chair agreed to vote on it that evening. My objections barely slowed it down ten minutes.

emphasis added

So, enquiring minds want to know, what was so important about this vote, conducted, according to Wanda Boone "several months ago," that City Wide PAC Chair Harold Chestnut had to have it voted on that night, without allowing for alternative viewpoints to be presented, without allowing for the facilitators to consult with their respective groups to determine how they wished their organization to vote, and without questioning the credentials to vote of one of the 3 facilitators who voted in favor of the resolution, and who, according to the current facilitator of PAC 5, was not authorized to represent that group, and voted against that groups expressed preferences?

I don't know anything about Mr. Chestnut; don't think i've ever met him. But this information seems to indicate that he's at the center of this ill-advised decision to jump into bed with Fairway Outdoor Advertising. Would love to hear his take on this situation.

Continue reading Updating again - sleazeball tactics

Updating again - sleazeball tactics

From the comments:

Marion Lamberth does not represent PAC5, and I am insulted to learn that she presented herself as such at this meeting. The co-facilitators of PAC5 are myself and Ms. Alice Cheek. Ms. Lamberth has not attended a PAC5 meeting in the two plus years that I have been co-facilitator. She was a former co-facilitator of PAC5, incorrectly presented herself as representing PAC5 on the CCIP Advisory Board, and now I learn she is casting votes when a) she is not authorized to cast such votes; and b) she has no possible understanding of the desires of the PAC since she does not even attend our meetings.

I am dumbfounded.

PAC5 did discuss the billboard ban at one of our monthly meetings, and all in attendance supported the existing ban. Ms. Cheek, my co-facilitator, attends the City-Wide PAC meetings, and was either late or absent for the meeting in question.

Scott Harmon

Wow.

What the fuck is Fairway thinking?

Continue reading Updating again - sleazeball tactics

Updating - sleazeball tactics

Wanda Boone of Durham TRY, who claimed to speak for Partners Against Crime at Fairway's press conference yesterday, has just sent out an email to the various PAC's.

Good Afternoon Everyone,

Four very quick points:
1. Have have not been contacted by nor have I made statements to the media regarding anything that has been in print.

2. TRY received donated billboard space in late 2007 after my approaching Fairway with the request. Fairway did not at any time offer free billboard space to TRY. As you see this transaction occurred prior to any recent electronic billboard discussions.

3. The request for me to speak came via Harold Chestnut, City-wide PAC to voice the result of City-wide PAC's vote (period) in favor of the electronic billboard "for the safety of our Durham Community". The majority of PAC representatives voted yes during the City-wide PAC meeting in question and the process was conducted fairly, as overseen by Harold. I carried the message.

4. I appreciate and respect the opinions of all those who wish to voice them. TRY's mission continues to be to prevent the devastating effects of substance abuse and underage drinking. Our billboard has been a successful tool in reaching that goal which is separate and apart from the electronic billboard discussion.

Best Regards,
Wanda
Wanda Boone

A couple of questions remain. Wanda claims that "The majority of PAC representatives voted yes during the City-wide PAC meeting in question and the process was conducted fairly, as overseen by Harold." We ask, when has the City-Wide PAC, a group which consists of the facilitators of the various district PACs, ever been asked to take a position on an issue like this? What information was available to the members of that group before they made their decision? So far as we know, only a representative of Fairway addressed the group? Were any other parties invited to present their viewpoints?

Continue reading Updating - sleazeball tactics

Sleazeball tactics

So i got an email yesterday telling me about a press conference in downtown Durham on behalf of the billboard "industry" and their ongoing attempts to have Durham's current billboard ordinance overturned. For about 20 years, after several court battles upheld Durham's right to ban new billboards through zoning ordinances, seemed like everybody was OK with that status quo. Then a new technology arrived, digital billboards, essentially giant flat-screen TVs for your highways, capable of showing new images every 10 or 15 seconds or so, the industry suddenly saw massive revenue streams available, and began pushing for modifications to the ordinance. "We just want to be able to replace a handful of our existing, rundown billboards with some of these new ones," they said. They offered access to some not-for-profit groups for occasional 10 second messages. They said that digital billboards were no more a traffic safety risk than conventional billboards.

Well, the jury's still out on that last one, since the study that came to that conclusion was, not surprisingly, funded by the industry, and objective evaluations of it cast doubt on its methodologies and conclusions. The full evidence isn't in yet, of course, but it's not looking good for the industry. Which probably explains why they're pushing so hard to get Durham's ban overturned. It'll be a lot harder to get of these things once they're installed, if the data shows that they're unsafe, than it will be to keep them from going up in the first place.

So anyway, didn't pay much attention to the press conference announcement since they've been doing this for three years.

Until i saw an email on the PAC 2 list asking if the PACs had endorsed the industry's position on overturning the billboard ordinance. WTF?

Quick digression - PAC stands for Partners Against Crime. There are 5 of them in Durham, roughly corresponding to the 5 police districts in town. I live in PAC 2, and i probably get to a couple of PAC meetings a year. It is a specifically non-political group in which citizens, police representatives, and city department heads interact and discuss concerns (street lighting, garbage pickup, maintenance issues, landlord/tenant conflicts, etc.) that can have impacts on crime and safety in neighborhoods. The PAC 2 website may not be completely up to date, but a review of the minutes of its meetings does not indicate that the issue of billboards was ever taken up.

So what gives?

Apparently, there's another PAC. It's called City-Wide PAC, and it consists of a meeting among the facilitators of the 5 distract PACs. And it was as a representative of this group that Wanda Boone, founder of Durham TRY, was speaking at yesterday's press conference. We'll get into some of the ironies of a group whose mission is to keep alcohol out of the hands of minors getting into bed with the billboard industry later. But for now, let's go to the videotape:

"Digital billboard technology is a wonderful tool" in locating missing persons and catching crooks, said Wanda Boone, representing Partners Against Crime at a press conference announcing the campaign this morning.

We've established that Wanda Boone presented herself as representing Partners Against Crime. How did that happen?

Here's an email from current PAC district 2 co-facilitator Bill Anderson:

Just returned from the City Wide PAC a couple hours ago, which is a monthly meeting of the 5 PAC Co-Facilitators. Often these meetings are very important, and should, theoretically, tie the five Police Districts together from a Partners Against Crime standpoint. I've never seen another company represented there before, or after, but sure enough...

A couple months ago, the attorney representing Fairway Advertising was there to pitch their case. At the end of the presentation, they requested PAC support. I objected as strongly as possible, mostly on the grounds that none of the PAC leaders could claim to know how their members would vote, and in essence, this would only be the opinion of the five individuals present, and WOULD NOT REPRESENT the PACs they lead.

I forced a vote to create a rule that City Wide PAC should NEVER vote on ANYTHING when the members of each of the individual PACs had not at least voted at their monthly meeting. That vote went south (3/2) and no such rule was created.

With PAC3's Patty Cloninger and I staring dumbfounded at each other across the table, and Melvin Whitley smiling like a Cheshire cat at the end, they took the vote to another predictable 3/2, and Chair Harold Chesnut gave that company permission to claim that City Wide PAC endorses it.

Marion Lamberth, PAC 5, Wanda Boone PAC 1, and Harold Chestnut, PAC 4 ~ IN FAVOR

Patty Coninger, PAC 3 and Bill Anderson, PAC 2 ~ AGAINST

I was powerless to stop this insane vote, cited the DCVB survey, but mostly general process. Mind you, the above folks are community leaders, and City Wide PAC often serves a good purpose, but that evening, in my opinion, it erred dramatically.

So, the company left with permission to claim City Wide PAC support, and I reserve the right to explain to the best of my ability, how they got it.

This is the first I've seen of Wanda's quote, so this is the first time I've explained what I bore witness to that evening.

Are you taking notes? Because this is important. Fairway Outdoor Advertising pitched itself to a meeting of the 5 facilitators of the PACs throughout the city, and asked for their endorsement of Fairway's billboard proposal. They didn't go to the individual PACs, and they didn't ask the facilitators to go back to their groups to obtain their endorsements. They got three people to approve their resolution, and then got those three people to put "City-Wide Partners Against Crime" behind their names.

Still paying attention? Because this is still important. You looked at the Durham TRY website linked above, right? You noticed that big billboard promoting Durham TRY, space donated by Fairway, right in the middle of the page, with a big "Thank You Fairway!" tag below it, right? OK. That's Wanda Boone's group. (And we'll still talk about the irony of a group devoted to keeping alcohol away from underage youth getting in bed with the billboard industry later.)

Let's go back to the videotape again:

The InterNeighborhood Council has gone on record opposing Fairway's request, but Fairway General Manager Paul Hickman said the council is not representative of the county as a whole. The INC lists 31 neighborhoods as members, out of more than 100 registered with the city/county planning department.

Now, you may remember a while back, the Inter-Neighborhood Council was the first group that Fairway and its partners attempted to persuade to get on board its campaign. At the time, Craigie Sanders was the INC president. Craigie, as it happens, is also an attorney at the firm representing Fairway, K&L Gates. One of my favorite of Craigie's moves as INC president was when he invited his fellow Gates attorney Patrick Byker to pay dues for the dormant Rockwood Neighborhood Association and become its representative to the INC, which backfired when other neighbors became aware of this and revitalized their Neighborhood Association as a result.

So - another brief digression. Inter-Neighborhood Council (with or without the hyphen) is another group in Durham that meets monthly, and invites all recognized neighborhood and homeowners associations in Durham to be members. It often takes positions on controversial issues, but in a somewhat more transparent fashion than the "City-Wide PAC" we talked about earlier. A neighborhood may ask for an INC endorsement of a position on, say, changing the billboard ordinance. A resolution will be drafted during a first meeting. At the next meeting, or sometimes even the next two meetings, information will be presented about the impacts of the proposal, and proponents and opponents will be invited to speak. INC delegates go back to their neighborhoods and discuss the various presentations and positions, and other neighborhood residents are welcome to attend INC meetings if they want firsthand information. The resolution may be amended or rewritten. Eventually, a vote is taken and INC's position is established. It may not be the prettiest process, and it may not be the timeliest process, but it would be fair to say that it provides for a significant amount of participation among Durham residents who are interested in the issue at hand.

Unlike, say, getting three industry supporters into a room and having them vote on an issue with no discussion amongst their constituents.

So when Fairway General Manager Paul Hickman says the council is not representative of the county as a whole, while standing next to Wanda Boone, who he knows does not represent the city as a whole, we are safe in describing his tactics as disingenuous, sleazy, underhanded, and reprehensible. At this point it would be reasonable to ask Mr. Hickman what percentage of Durham's billboard advertising revenues are generated by alcohol advertising, and more specifically, by alcohol ads placed in Durham's at-risk communities, specifically along Alston Ave. and US 70 in East Durham? And what percentage and total revenues do they anticipate the new "digital" billboards will generate in those same areas? And then it would be reasonable to ask Wanda Boone why it is that her group is willing to sell itself to the billboard industry, which is one of the prime vectors for alcohol advertising aimed at at-risk young people, the same people her organization claims to be trying to reach, for the price of a few free billboard ads? Could it be that Durham TRY is more interested in establishing its organizational position in the political landscape than in actually getting kids to postpone alcohol consumption? Because if that was their true goal, eliminating outdoor advertising for alcohol would be a much more effective tactic than merely subbing one out of every 4 Crown Royal ads with Durham TRY PSA, wouldn't it?

Noted: Kevin wakes up much earlier than i do.

Continue reading Sleazeball tactics

That was then, this is now

Durham Police chief Jose Lopez commenting on electronic billboards on the Interstate back in July:

“This is my professional opinion, not a personal one. There is no indication billboards cause accidents. It could only help in getting law enforcement message across.”

Durham Police department statement yesterday in response to a 17" x 22" 3 foot tall sign on a neighborhood surface street:

We fear that these signs could be a distraction to even the most law-abiding motorists and possibly cause collisions.

A request to DPD spokesperson Kammie Michael for a comment on the apparent discrepancy has so far gone unanswered.

UPDATE: Kammie Michael has responded with a note saying she has referred my question to Chief Lopez directly.

Continue reading That was then, this is now

Today's reading assignment

Still on my break, but you should read this:

Durham citizens, neighborhood groups, and local officials worked hard to reduce billboard blight along our highways and in our city. There have been a many, many letters to the editor from Durham citizens who oppose electronic billboards and a only a few supporting the billboard industry, with most of those coming from the Friends of Durham/Chamber of Commerce camp. Some of these letter writers have blamed local government for the deterioration of billboards in Durham. The fact is that current ordinances allow billboard companies to make annual improvements in order to maintain their billboards, but the industry has allowed its billboards to deteriorate anyway. These billboards may be ugly, but don't blame current ordinances or local government.

The Chamber's efforts on behalf of the billboard industry to overturn the current ban on electronic billboards, despite citizen outcry, begs the question: Why are the City and County giving the Chamber $128,000 in taxpayer subsidies/year so the Chamber can turn around and lobby local officials on behalf of outside interests that contribute little to our local economy or quality of life?

Continue reading Today's reading assignment

Billboard hoopla

In all the discussion that's been ongoing this year about the billboard industry's request to waive or amend existing law prohibiting upgrades to existing billboards, one thing has been lacking: what's in it for the citizens of Durham City and County? What are we going to get out of the deal?

According to an email circulating on various listservs, Tom Miller has documented that the city and county collect something like $2,400/year total from all the billboards in the area. What is that going to go up to with the new billboards? How many new schools are we going to be able to build with this additional revenue? How many layoffs will be avoided?

As far as i can tell, the answers are none, and none, respectively.

So, what's in it for us?

Continue reading Billboard hoopla

What am i missing here?

Ray Gronberg, in Wednesday's Herald Sun:

Planners and elected officials may have little control over the timing of the debate once a Georgia billboard company decides it's ready to press for a revision of Durham's restrictions on its business.

Fairway Outdoor Advertising, is taking advantage of a provision in local law that allows anyone to ask for a change in development rules, City/County Planning Director Steve Medlin said Tuesday.

For a fee, the company has the right to a hearing with the City Council and the County Commissioners, Medlin told a joint panel of both those boards.

Medlin said his staff is busy researching billboard issues because he expects debate to unfold quickly once Fairway settles on a proposal.

"They're not going to go away," he said, explaining why he's having his subordinates do background work. "When it comes, it's going to come quick and it's going to come hard. I don't want to be unprepared."

Fairway officials want the right to replace some existing billboards with electronic models that can flash different messages every few seconds.

The company also wants permission to move and upgrade some billboards, City Council member Diane Catotti said.

State officials have told planners there are 89 billboards in the city, down from 101 at the start of the decade, said Julia Mullen, a planner in Medlin's department. Fairway is said to own 54 of them.

The city and county don't allow new billboards but a federal law bars them from ordering the removal of those that do exist.

Vicki Jean DeHamer, in the Cary News last week:

A decision the Town of Cary made more than 20 years ago to eliminate all large signs and billboards is still being argued in court.

The Cary News last reported on the issue in March 2008, highlighting a Fairway Outdoor Advertising billboard that has stood on East Chatham Street for over 50 years, which town officials decided was overdue for teardown.

The town approved a Land Development Amendment in 2003, putting all rogue signs on notice and officially starting a three-year countdown for removal by July 1, 2006.

Two holdouts emerged: Fairway’s billboard and South Hills Mall, for a sign on the side of I-440 North that’s too tall.

The deadline came and went, and both Fairway and South Hills’ owners left their signs standing. Fines started to rack up, eventually to the hefty rate of $500 a day.

An appeal by Fairway in March 2008 was denied by the town’s Zoning Review Board. South Hills did not respond, according to town officials.

The Fairway billboard stands to this day, some calling it “the last billboard in Cary.”

Last i checked, Cary and Durham were both still in the United States. Why does federal law prohibit Durham from ordering the removal of billboards, but not Cary? What am i missing here?

Continue reading What am i missing here?