Billboards attract lawmakers' eye

e-mail this story print this story

_____Top stories_____

The signs and their regulation were hotly contested in the 1980s, but the attention had faded as cities and billboard companies compromised.

Now cities are looking again.

House bill 3381 would require local governments to pay billboard companies and landowners to remove billboards that no longer comply with building and zoning codes.

Billboard companies see the pending legislation as a way to ensure that they get compensation if they are put out of business.

But some city officials said measures like these would make the removal of billboards too expensive — perhaps $150,000-$180,000 per billboard — and that could prevent cities from regulating the appearance of their communities.

Greenville resident Omar Wilson said billboards are effective advertisements that should be a welcome part of the community. He said billboard companies deserve to be treated like other businesses.

"If you're forced out of business, you should be compensated," Wilson said.

But Jamie Boggs of Clemson said billboards can detract from an area's beauty and atmosphere. She said amortization, or the phasing out of billboards over a period of years so companies can recoup revenue, would be a good option.

"It would be nice to have some legislation that says 'no more billboards,'" Boggs said. "I think the amortization is more than fair."

City of Greenville officials are looking at a possible amortization ordinance as part of the city's sign ordinance. If the ordinance is passed before the state legislation is approved, it could be grandfathered in and preserved.

The ordinance wouldn't affect most signs in Greenville, dealing only with those non-compliant with changes in zoning or other regulations, City Attorney Ron McKinney said.

Local governments already have to give compensation for billboards on federally aided highways because of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965.

McKinney said of the 84 conforming billboards in Greenville, 62 are on federal aid highways and are therefore protected.

Those that aren't compliant and also aren't on a federal highway would be the focus of the possible city ordinance, which would allow a nonconforming sign to stay up for six years.

During those years, officials said, billboard companies could recoup the money spent to put up the sign.

A provision in the ordinance allows for a request for the relocation of a sign to a site that would be within the location restrictions.

Currently Greenville's regulation concerning billboards is a cap-and-replace system. No billboards can come into the city, but if one is taken down, one can be erected.

McKinney said the city also has restrictions on size, height, location and proximity to each other. Billboards are allowed in three zones: general commercial, industrial and service.

The proposed state legislation would provide that if local governments choose to amortize billboards or phase them out, they must pay cash compensation, McKinney said. The bill has a mandatory relocation alternative for nonconforming signs.

Ken Young, an attorney for Fairway Outdoor Advertising and a partner at Nelson Mullins, said Fairway has 71 sign locations in the Greenville city limits, with eight nonconforming signs that would be at risk.

Young said if amortization were to pass in Greenville, Fairway would have no choice but to file for legal action opposing amortization as unconstitutional.

"It would be a shame to have a lawsuit over eight signs, but to an outdoor advertising company, even one or two signs being amortized would result in legal action, because it's the principle. We do not believe that it is fair compensation for a taking."

Rhea Byrd, who owns three car washes in Greenville, has been leasing a billboard on his property at his Mauldin Road location to Fairway since he bought the business almost two years ago.

The sign on Byrd's property at his Car Wash Center isn't compliant now because the regulation on the required distance between a residence and a billboard changed.

Byrd said the loss of that extra $200 each month from the lease, which pays for his electric bill at the car wash, would be a significant impact on him.

Byrd said billboard companies should be compensated if a billboard has to come down. To him, amortization isn't enough.

Amortization has come up in other cities in the South, and Young said Fairway has been through litigation over the issue.

In Myrtle Beach, a lawsuit was settled out of court. In an Asheville case, the state Supreme Court found in 2002 that an ordinance was invalid and ruled in support of billboard owners.

For some working to strike a balance, the principles of amortization and regulation are at stake.

"It's the principle of protecting as much home rule as possible," McKinney said. "Council members' desire to proceed now stems from the knowledge that if they don't preserve this option at this point, the state legislation ... will limit their ability to take the same action in the future."

Terry Graves, general manager for Fairway, said working in and with the Greenville community is a high priority, but he disagrees with the city taking away the rights of billboard companies and landowners who depend on the lease money from billboards. He said about four states use amortization.

"We think amortization is a step too far," Graves said.

Jim Campbell, general services director for the city, said the state legislation would take away local governments' ability to regulate billboards because of the high cost of compensating billboard companies.

While an exact formula isn't prepared, Campbell said just compensation would be a speculative value of selling the billboard every day for a set time like 20 years, something that could cost between $150,000 to $180,000 per billboard.

"The people in a community should have the ability to decide what the community looks like," Campbell said.

The City Planning Commission recently held a public hearing to consider an amortization ordinance. Afterward the commission agreed to recommend that the City Council approve the ordinance.

Some planning commission members were frustrated that the issue had to be handled through an ordinance, citing a need for compromise and continued cooperation between the city and billboard companies.

Others recommended an amendment that would bring requests for nonconforming billboards to be relocated before the planning commission.

The agreed-upon amendment said the commission would then make a recommendation to City Council members who would then take action on the request.

The City Council will discuss the issue at its meeting today. Two readings at formal sessions would be required to pass the ordinance.