One lady's speech reminded us of Malcolm X's famous "By any means necessary" comment. The issue, in a nutshell, is that some time ago Austin decided to go along with citizen groups who want this to be a city completely free of billboards of any kind. Tonight representatives of the Northwest and South Austin neighborhoods were at City Hall to express their outrage that the plan to rid Austin of all outdoor signage has not been accomplished.
The South Austin representative raised the issue of light-pollution of the night sky, and described the effects of these lights in the outlying area of Austin where she lives. She believes the billboards are responsible for the lack of stars that can be seen now, compared to five years ago. She said "dark sky lighting" would not be enough of a concession, but only eradication. Nobody mentioned any other possible explanations for fewer visible stars, such as more polluted air, or air traffic. (We recall an interesting surprise in the flight moratorium after 9-11: the sudden clarity of the night skies.)
She was followed by a speaker who compared the evil billboard companies to the evil tobacco companies. We waited for statistics on eye-cancer but none were presented.
But these two speakers were no match in pure visceral passion to the woman from the Northwest neighborhood association who declared those billboards WILL COME DOWN!!!
She gots lots of loud applause.
After all that, the fellas who stood up for the billboard companies surprised us. They did not have fangs or bat-like wings, neither did they have bulging biceps with tattoos of billboard-induced death counts.
They spoke softly, mentioned a few details of the agreements that had been set up to manage and compromise the issue. The gentleman for Reagan Advertising mentioned the Constitution in passing, but did not go very far in that direction. This definitely was not a crowd that wants to hear about freedom of expression. The gentleman from Anderson Advertising mentioned a question of discrimination against one form of expression. He referred to a conflict between the desired eradication of the billboards and the law, particularly a State law that we are not familiar with.
Councillor Leffingwell commented, after their remarks, that he was under the impression that one reason for having this hearing involved a question of exactly that law. The issue was tabled after that comment and after a City Hall employee spoke on the impossibility of carrying out the task of taking down the signs with the present budget and staff level.
Our impression: all of the impassioned crusaders against billboards appeared to be retirees. (We are old enough to point this out without being accused of agism). All of them seem to want Austin to look like a landscaped park. They also do not seem to be aware of the serious hazard of sleepiness on long stretches of monotonous "scenic highway". They probably have not faced what younger people often face, which is the need to fight sleep on a long drive. Billboards actually are an important safety assett on long highways.
Beyond the light-pollution issue, which could be a problem with a giant billboard, we could not see the evil they were fighting. A few rules about number, size and placement should serve to keep billboards under control. Guessing by the usual make-up of neighborhood committees, this may be the same population that supports "Art In Public Places." Which we also support, and we wonder about the comparative logic.
Billboards are an earth-friendly, small-business-friendly, economically sound medium if used judiciously. They don't pollute landfills and they don't make noise.
We like billboards, within reason. We don't think they are addictive or carcinogenic.
And we really wonder about the deeper significance of the passion expressed at tonight's City Council
Stay tuned, Dear Readers.
No comments:
Post a Comment