County looks to ban billboards

Thursday, Feb. 19, 2004 | 10:15 a.m.

Clark County is preparing to challenge the billboard industry with what could be the strongest ordinance in three years of battling over the outdoor signs.

Commissioner Bruce Woodbury directed staff members to write an ordinance that would ban all new signs anywhere under the county's jurisdiction. Woodbury said he is asking for the rule in reaction to the industry's ongoing lawsuit that would lead to many more signs along parts of Interstate 215 and other areas where the signs are now prohibited.

The proposal is expected to be formally introduced March 3. It will be the subject of a public hearing and a vote two weeks after its introduction. The commission, in a companion move, directed the county staff to stop accepting applications for new billboards as of Wednesday. A 90-day moratorium on processing new applications for billboards will get a public hearing on March 3.

Woodbury said he believes the District Court lawsuit, filed in March 2003, could be successful. A number of local billboard companies sued because an earlier version of the county code gave the commission discretionary power over where billboards could go. The companies argued that the ability to allow some billboards and not others represented an infringement upon their First Amendment rights.

In response, the county commission, by a 6-1 vote, in November eliminated the ability to grant any waivers. County Counsel Rob Warhola said those companies with applications to erect signs under the old version of the law might be permitted if the companies win the lawsuit.

Woodbury suggested he might think again about his proposal if the industry withdrew the lawsuit.

"If the industry as a whole would act responsibly, we wouldn't have to have the ordinance," he said.

Woodbury said he is sympathetic to landowners, who likely would be locked into existing leases with billboard companies if the ordinance passes. Landowners with billboards on their property but outside the "bill overlay zone" -- the only area in which the signs are now allowed in the county's jurisdiction -- have argued that the refusal to grant any waivers means that they cannot negotiate with another billboard company.

Billboard companies usually own the physical structure supporting a sign. When a lease expires, those companies have the option of taking the sign down. If a sign comes down outside the overlay zone, a new one cannot replace it.

The existing law defines the overlay zone where new billboards are allowed as Interstate 215 from Durango Drive to Valley View Boulevard and from Pecos Road to Warm Springs Road. New signs are also allowed on Blue Diamond road from Decatur Boulevard to Valley View.

A new blanket prohibition would not remove existing signs, but Warhola said that many would be taken out through attrition.

Woodbury's proposal would eliminate the overlay zone, essentially freezing existing signs in place.

Commissioner Mary Kincaid-Chauncey said the new rule would go too far.

"In 25 years of politics, I don't think I've gotten five complaints from citizens about billboards," she said.

Commissioner Mark James, however, said he has "heard lots and lots of complaints about billboards."

Kincaid-Chauncey also complained that the new rule would affect construction companies that specialize in building the signs as well as landowners.

"I'm worried about the economic impact more than anything else," she said. "There should be some happy medium without totally putting a business out of business."

James and Commission Chairman Chip Maxfield said there are overriding reasons in favor of the clampdown so they are backing Woodbury on the proposal. James said discarding the original 2003 ordinance -- itself a replacement from another ordinance passed a year earlier -- would mean a flood of billboards in areas that the commission never intended.

"If all the signs that could be built go up, we would be at the saturation level, especially in the areas we tried to protect," James said.

R. Van Nostrand, vice president of marketing for Connell Outdoor Advertising, said the ordinance, if passed, will hurt smaller billboard companies, landowners and the companies that specialize in putting the signs up.

"There are businesses out there, that's what they do," he said. "If there are no signs to build, there's nothing for them to do.

"It puts landowners in a bad way. They will have no negotiating power."

Connell is not a party to the lawsuit, but Van Nostrand said he is sympathetic to a First Amendment battle over the billboard issue. He said landowners and advertisers have a legitimate right to use the signs as their voice.

"The (American) Civil Liberties Union should be knocking the door down," he said.

He warned that if the prohibition passes, there would be other effects. One would be that rates for advertising on the existing signs would likely go up, and continue to go up, as the number of available signs dwindles.

"The price will skyrocket," he said. "It's supply and demand."

Van Nostrand also warned that larger companies that now control most of the leases for existing signs would negotiate low leases, potentially paying landowners less than they could get in an open market, and would lock out smaller competitors.