Sign of the times: County passes law banning new billboards

Thursday, April 22, 2004 | 10:57 a.m.

A sweeping ban on new billboards in unincorporated Clark County will go into effect next month, the latest product in more than three years of battle between the billboard industry and county government.

Clark County commissioners, citing "visual blight" caused by the signs and legal efforts by the industry to undue previous restrictions, passed the new law 7-0 Wednesday. The law means that no new signs can go up anywhere outside the county's cities except along Interstate 15 north of the North Las Vegas city line -- and even there, billboards would face significant restrictions by state law.

The law would not affect most of the estimated 1,200 billboards that are already up in the county, although some could come down because since 2002 the county commission has required new signs to go up with five- or 10-year time limits. The county commission asked planning staff to look at the issue of the time limits, and could amend the new law to allow extensions of time for the signs in a new ordinance to come back to the commission in six months.

Commissioners rejected a proposal that also would have allowed the signs south of St. Rose Parkway along I-15. Commissioner Lynette Boggs McDonald, who took her seat Tuesday to replace resigning commissioner Mark James, said that could open the door to future billboards along the interstate that is in her district.

The commission's decision had the support of about 200 people attending the hearing at the commission chambers. Many of those residents, who brought infants and small children, objected to both the proliferation of the billboards and the content of the signs. Billboards in Las Vegas have become the sexually suggestive advertising medium for strip clubs, escort services and risque nightclubs.

Despite the support from community activists, some billboard companies immediately cried foul, arguing that the rules will allow the larger national companies to monopolize the existing, permitted signs.

Lucy Stewart, a land-use consultant representing Las Vegas Billboards, said the rule will reduce competition in the billboard industry. The company has sued the county for earlier restrictions and has argued that the county's own slice of the billboard industry, about 80 signs near the airport, constitute an attempt to monopolize the industry.

"The proposed ordinance would put small local outdoor advertisers out of business," she said. "It limits billboards to an area where Nevada state law would effectively ban outdoor billboards."

Dave Harris, Las Vegas Billboards president, said his company will be hit hard by the new law, although he will try to continue with a handful of signs that are already up, and therefore grandfathered in under the law. He said the company has already taken steps to ban sexually suggestive billboards, one of the rallying points for the billboard opponents.

Others speaking against the law said the move would hit not just the billboard companies, but the construction companies, designers, landowners who lease space to the companies and others who make money by putting up the massive outdoor signs. Among those sympathetic to that argument was Commissioner Mary Kincaid-Chauncey.

"It's a very difficult issue," Kincaid-Chauncey said. "Looking at the gaming issue and their advertising, it definitely is an important part of their advertising.

"Any business that we will prohibit entirely will have an effect," she said. "There's no denying that we will affect the quality of life of those who will lose their jobs because of this ban."

Kincaid-Chauncey, however, joined the rest of the commission in supporting the final product.

Many of those speaking in support of the ban on new billboards said the problem is one of content -- comments that came despite the admonitions from commissioners and county staff that the ban was a land-use issue and could not address the potentially thorny First Amendment issues of content.

Kathy Dye, a homeowner with two teenage sons, said she is concerned about the "pornographic" character of some billboards.

"That's one of the real issues we need to examine," she said. "We don't want to drive in our residential areas and have to look at it."

Brian Scroggins, a member of the Enterprise Town Advisory Board which recommends land-use decisions to the county commission, said his board has tried to work with the billboard companies in terms of controlling the content.

"We have basically come to the determination that the only way to control content is to control the locations," he said.

Summerlin resident Sherry Peterson, however, said the problem with the signs is that they have become so numerous that they block the views of the city and mountains.

"We have so many that you really can't get a good look at the city," she said. "If we pass this, banning the billboards, it would really help beautify our city."

Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, who has led the county's fight against billboards for the past three years, said the law isn't about the content of the signs but about the distractions to safe driving and the impact on the quality of life that the proliferation of the signs has had.

"If we left the hearing open for another couple of hours we'd hear a lot more of the same thing," Woodbury said of the numerous residents testifying against the laws. "There is a proliferation of billboards and there are too many billboards in the community."

He said the challenges to the county's previous rules mean that without the wholesale ban, more billboards could come.

Commissioner Rory Reid, who took office in 2003 and joined the billboard-control effort, said the legal challenges limit the ability to the county to grant much discretion on where to allow the signs.

"This is the end of a long road," Reid said. "I don't know if there's much else we can do except ban them."

However, the latest move may not be the final bump in the road. Stewart, representing Las Vegas Billboards, said the company is exploring its legal options and could either amend its existing lawsuit or file another suit to overturn the new law.