Scenic Saint Paul is concerned citizens dedicated to developing an attractive and prosperous city by controlling billboards and other intrusive advertising. Our Chair is John Mannillo and our Director is Jeanne Weigum.
Please join Scenic Saint Paul!
Click here to send a message to MN legislators to support the bills creating a moratorium.
The MN Senate Transportation Committee will vote on Thursday, March 11 on S.F. 2369 to place a moratorium on digital billboards in Minnesota until June 30, 2013. The Mn House Transportation and Transit Policy and Oversight Division Committee will vote on H.F. 2921 on Wed., March 17th to enact the moratorium. Besides being an eyesore, digital billboards add another strong distraction to drivers, making our roads less safe. The billboard companies, like Clear Channel, NBC Outdoors and Lamar Communications, want to put up new digital billboards and convert old billboards to digital before the results of a federal safety study by the Federal Highway Administration is completed. This supports corporate profits over public safety.
Click here to send a message to MN legislators to support the bills creating a moratorium.
Once you get to the action alert page, be sure to click on the "Read more about this issue" link if you'd like to learn more about digital billboards.
(Announcement courtesy of MetroWatchDog - check them out!)
You don't need to look very far to find one in Saint Paul! In a census taken in 2010 it was found that Saint Paul still has 522 billboards. This is extraordinarily high and far surpasses the number in Minneapolis and is more than any other city in Minnesota . Here is a map of the locations of all Saint Paul billboards. Give this PDF file a minute to download. See our Issues page for more billboard maps.
The Times (March 2, 2010) summarizes the arguments over the digital billboard, "television on a stick." It is part of the paper's Driven to Distraction series (and therein lies the tale of traffic safety!). Read more.
A big crowd filled the City Hall auditorium to view Scenic Saint Paul's billboard video and discuss the billboard issue.
See the video of the Bag the Boards public meeting.
SCENIC SAINT PAUL held a successful (and crowded) media event and open discussion of the billboard problems of the city on Wednesday, January 21 at City Hall. The event was co-hosted by numerous St. Paul Community Councils and civic organizations and featured presentations by Gerry Mischke (Scenic Saint Paul), former Councilwoman Ruby Hunt, Robert Straughn (former city attorney), Councilmen Russ Stark and Dave Thune, activist Jane Prince, Brian McMahon (University United) and others. The invitation, listing the sponsors, is here.
Saint Paul has more billboards -- both per capita and in actual numbers -- than any other municipality in Minnesota. The highlight of the brown bag lunch was the "world premiere" of a video, produced by SCENIC SAINT PAUL volunteers, showing EVERY ONE of Saint Paul's 561 billboards – ward by ward. Videos of billboards in each of Saint Paul's wards are found on this site. Scenic Saint Paul member, Gerald Mischke, edited and produced the videos.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a lower-court ruling, saying the city's 2002 prohibition of outdoor advertising does not violate a sign company's 1st Amendment right to free speech.
By David Zahniser and Phil Willon in the Los Angeles Times
January 7, 2009
A federal appellate court issued a ruling Tuesday upholding Los Angeles' citywide billboard ban, handing a rare victory to the city in its uphill battle to regulate outdoor signs. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the city's 2002 outdoor advertising ban does not violate a sign company's 1st Amendment right to free speech, reversing a lower-court ruling.
Outdoor advertising company Metro Lights LLC had argued that the city could not prohibit new "off-site" signs -- images that advertise products not sold on the immediate property -- while at the same time selling advertising space on city-owned bus benches and kiosks. Metro Lights had accused the city of auctioning off "1st Amendment rights to the highest bidder." "This is strong, if rather sloganeering, language, but after reviewing the case law on which Metro Lights relies, we believe it to be little more than a canard," the court wrote.
Paul E. Fisher, the Newport Beach attorney who represents Metro Lights, said his client had not decided whether to appeal the decision. The opinion, if upheld, could influence lawsuits over municipal sign laws across the nation, Fisher said. "It's certainly a significant ruling, and it is a blow to the outdoor advertising industry," he added. The ruling would have the force of law only in the nine Western states that fall under the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction -- California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska and Hawaii. But lawyers with City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo said cities as far away as New York had been waiting to see what the 9th Circuit would do. In addition, at least five other lawsuits in Los Angeles have referenced the Metro Lights case, said Deputy City Atty. Kenneth Fong.
The ruling comes as the city's elected officials struggle to limit the size, location, brightness and sheer number of new signs. Since the ban was approved seven years ago, Delgadillo has had to respond to more than a dozen lawsuits, including one that led to a legal settlement allowing as many as 840 billboards owned by CBS Outdoor and Clear Channel Outdoor to be converted to a digital format. Last year, a federal judge sided with World Wide Rush, a firm that argued that the city cannot ban billboards while allowing certain exceptions, such as a zoning district near Staples Center that permits outdoor signs. That ruling, which is on appeal, still prohibits the city from enforcing its 2002 billboard ban. Several other sign companies have followed World Wide Rush into court, using the same legal argument, according to the city's lawyers. Meanwhile, one billboard firm, Summit Media has filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the settlement agreement with CBS and Clear Channel.
With neighborhood groups furious over the city's inability to enforce its laws, the council approved a new, temporary 90-day sign ban. Although the moratorium took effect Dec. 26, some unpermitted signs have continued going up, according to the city's lawyers. Councilman Bill Rosendahl, whose Westside district takes in coastal neighborhoods, applauded Tuesday's ruling, saying it would give the city credibility in its battle against billboards. "Obviously, we have seen billboards pop up like mushrooms in our district," he said. "It has been totally out of control." At the heart of the Metro Lights case are two votes by the City Council. In 2001, the council awarded a contract to CBS-Decaux LLC for advertising on municipal "street furniture" -- restrooms, magazine stands and bus shelters. Months later, the council imposed a citywide off-site sign ban, saying such images have a negative effect on traffic and visual aesthetics. Metro Lights argued that the ban was unconstitutional, with the city favoring one form of advertising over another. That legal argument was also embraced by Michael McNeilly, founder of the Beverly Hills-based company SkyTag, whose website promotes graphics "so large they can be seen from space." In a lawsuit filed in August, McNeilly argued that the city could not regulate "supergraphics" -- images applied to vinyl or plastic and placed on the sides of buildings -- while selling its ad space at Los Angeles International Airport and on other city facilities.
Last month, images of the Statue of Liberty with McNeilly's name began appearing on the sides of multistory buildings on Wilshire, Westwood and Santa Monica boulevards. City inspectors said they have launched investigations into at least three buildings with McNeilly images. McNeilly has not responded to requests from The Times for interviews. But in an e-mail, he argued that his Statue of Liberty images are murals and cannot be controlled by the city. "The murals of the Statue of Liberty are an artistic and political expression protected by the 1st Amendment," he wrote last week. david.zahniser@latimes.com phil.willon@latimes.com
By DAVID PETERSON, Star Tribune
August 4, 2008
In the first court decision of its kind in Minnesota, a judge in Ramsey County has ordered Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. to shut off a flashing electronic billboard it installed in Arden Hills nearly two years ago without the city's permission.
A flashing digital electronic billboard, similar to this one in St. Paul, is at the heart of Arden Hills' lawsuit against Clear Channel Outdoor Inc.
The billboard -- one of a new generation that critics say threatens to turn American freeways into mini-Las Vegas strips -- was one of eight the company installed throughout the Twin Cities area, setting off a host of repercussions.
Attorneys for the city say that the ruling of J. Thomas Mott, a district judge in Ramsey County, is a major signal from the courts that these billboards do in fact represent a fundamental change and one that cities have the power to stop.
"The practical effect," said attorney John Baker, of the Minneapolis firm Greene Espel and representing Arden Hills, "is that it prevents a billboard company from unilaterally putting up a dynamic sign and saying it has a right to disregard local laws. To the contrary, it is an expansion of what they had before, and they've got to obey the laws as written."
Clear Channel attorneys could not be reached for comment.
Late in 2006, the company installed eight such billboards in the Twin Cities area, from Minnetonka in the west to Maplewood and Eagan in the east.
Minnetonka took the early lead in fighting back, describing the two installed there as an attempted end run around the objections that the company knew the city would have if it fully understood what was going on.
In the end a deal was reached: The city agreed to let them operate, provided the company tore down others within the city limits.
Arden Hills was different, said Baker, who represented both cities. "There are only two billboards in the entire city, about 100 feet apart from one another," near the intersection of Interstates 35W and 694. Arden Hills chose to press its case before the courts.
In his ruling, signed on Friday, Mott dismissed the company's claim that switching from a static, conventional billboard to a digital one, similar to a television set, is an "improvement."
Rather, he wrote, the change must be seen as "an enlargement and an expansion," which makes it illegal under local and state laws unless permission is granted. He ordered the company to shut the electricity down within seven days and remove the billboard from the site within 90 days.
If the company lost the case, however, Baker said, it achieved its aims for quite some time.
"This ruling is a complete rejection of their original complaint" against the city," he said, "but I suspect if you drive by today, you'd see still it operating. In that respect, it's not a complete loss for Clear Channel," which got many months of use out of it and can now move it to another spot.
David Peterson • 612-673-4440
© 2008 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
Billboards are advertisements. They are designed to grab our attention, and hold it, just like a television or radio commercial or an ad in a magazine. The latest in billboard technology—the digital or electronic sign—tries to hold our attention even longer by changing messages and pictures every few seconds using a series of extremely bright, colorful images produced mainly via LED (lightemitting
diode) technologies.
Common sense tells us that if we are looking at a billboard and not at
the road when we are driving, that’s a dangerous thing. Brightly lit signs
that change messages every few seconds compel us to notice them, much the same way our eyes move to the television screen when it’s on. They lure our attention away from what’s happening on the road and onto the
sign. It’s just human nature. And it works. That’s why these signs are so
incredibly lucrative for the billboard industry.
Proponents of digital billboards say nobody has ever proven that they
increase traffic accidents. This statement is only partially true. Some studies
have shown a link between digital billboards (as well as static boards) and
traffic safety problems, while others remained inconclusive. Importantly,
no objective studies have shown them to be safe, nor have studies been
conducted since these signs have started to proliferate.
What does the research currently say?
Read more
Check out our videos of billboards in each of Saint Paul's wards.
See the video of the Bag the Boards public meeting.
