New York City, Times Square, New Years Eve 2001
(from the Official Website for Times Square)
The Official Cam of Times Square
Sign ByLaws
Is outdoor advertising visual blight or a freedom-of-speech issue or both?
In a recent survey of suburban Kanata, Ontario Grade 8 students that we did to examine their housing preferences, we found that two thirds of the students believed that Billboards are art and add life to a city. 50% of the female students agreed with this statement while 83% of the males went along with the idea that Billboards add life to the city.
New York City, Times Square, New Years Eve 2001
(from the Official Website for Times Square)
In contrast, in an Oakville, Ontario plebiscite (of adults) held in 2000, 85% voted against allowing billboards even in industrial or commercial zones.
In Vermont, they banished billboards a generation ago. Many jurisdictions have tried to ban or limit billboards with varying degrees of success. Some have managed to limit their presence to industrial or commercial zones and entirely prohibit them in residential areas.
Other jurisdictions believe that billboards represent a freedom-of-expression issue and have taken a handsoff approach. Still others view billboards as adding life to an urban mix-- where would Tokyo be or Times Square without the added life and information of billboards?
The appeal of billboards is that they can not be zapped by a television remote control or skipped over by a personal video recorder. They are in-your-face information.
Billboards are becoming more valuable for those who own lands that are 'grandfathered'-- protected rights to own or lease a billboard where no new locations are being permitted. This brings up the issue of inter-generational equity-- two land owners with the same zoning have different property rights separated only by time.
Billboards are becoming more interactive-- full motion, 'activision' billboards that are eminently readable in full daylight are replacing static billboards or even tri-vision ones (those with three, mechanically changed faces per side).
In Vermont, the State allows cute brown and white roadside signs for local businesses. In Ontario, the Provincial Government has created a monopoly (TODS, an acronym for Tourism Oriented Destination Signage) within 400 metres of all 400 series highways that puts up cute blue and white signs for local attractions. This is a huge money spinner for Ontario.
One could argue that the TODS signage is less of a visual blight than billboards would be but one can't argue that they are any less of a safety issue than the billboards they replace. They are just as distracting maybe even more so because of their relative small size.
In fact, TODS has created a bit of a size war in Ontario because advertisers now erect gigantic billboards in farmers' fields that can be read by speeding drivers at 400 metres+.
For all landowners alongside 400 series highways, there has been a large transfer in land value and land rents from them to the Province and TODS.
It reminds one that the best business to be in, is the business of government. When one's expenses are increasing, all one has to do is raise prices (call them taxes, if you will) and people must pay. Indeed, if they don't, one has enforcement mechanisms in place to compel people to: a) consume such services (like TODS signs in place of billboards) and b) pay for them (any local business or attraction has no option but to buy from monopoly provider TODS at TODS-set prices).
Create monopolies, raise prices at will, regulate the competition out of business, appropriate value without compensation, force people to consume your services, enforce payment ... this makes the government business unbeatable.
Billboards are a form of expression for commercial or other purposes. They can be an urban art form. They add life to a city. They add value to private property.
Tokyo's Ginza Strip