Supervisor Michael Devries sent me a copy of the lawsuit filed by Hocul Advertising against Grand Rapids Township, which asks that the Township’s ordinance banning electronic billboards (and off-site advertising in general) be ruled unconstitutional. It makes interesting reading.
This is an issue currently being litigated around the country. Several states and many cities have banned them, or are considering a ban. The usual result, as in Grand Rapids Township, is a lawsuit. A by-now somewhat outdated article in USA Today from 2010 is an introduction to the issues. A good recent report comes from the G.R. Law firm Mika, Meyers, Beckett and Jones.
These billboards can range from $200,000 to $500,000 to erect, far more than traditional billboards. However, they have all sorts of advantages to advertisers. The content can be managed remotely. I had a student a few years back who worked for a billboard company. He could change the content from his dorm room. Differential rates can be charged, higher during prime commuting hours, lower at 3 a.m. This allows companies to get far more revenue from the same space than is possible with traditional billboards — and advertisers like them because they can pay less for part-time advertising on digital billboards than for having exclusive placement on a traditional one.
However, these billboards are obtrusive (which, of course, is exactly why billboard companies want to erect them). Day or night (and especially at night), they are hard to ignore. Their light pollution blots out the night sky. They distract drivers, particularly when not along expressways (two of the proposed billboards are along the Beltline, one on East Paris). They consume a great deal of energy.
For a report on some of the unfortunate effects of electronic billboards, see a report titled Illuminating the Issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment