Billboard Blues
by Jenny Staff
What's the best way to get rid of billboards in Austin? Chainsaws and flatbed trucks, maybe?
If only it were that simple. The Austin City Council conducted a public hearing last week seeking a more legally feasible way to eradicate the big square signs that clutter the roadways (and God's blue sky), through amendment of an ordinance that prevents the installation of new billboards in the city. The ordinance does allow for the maintenance of existing signs, and the replacement of signs in their existing location -- but a replacement sign must be at least 20% smaller than the sign it replaces.
City staff had long interpreted that ordinance to mean that only the company holding a current lease for a billboard could replace a sign -- meaning no new companies could enter the business in Austin. But in the last year or so, the staff changed its interpretation and has been issuing permits to new companies eager to compete with Reagan National Advertising -- Austin's resident billboard monopolist. Reagan controls approximately 80% of the billboards in Austin, and consequently has been paying lower-than-market rates to the landowners from whom it rents the land where their billboards sit. One competitor estimated that in some cases Reagan is paying only 10% of what the space would be worth on the open market.
illustration by Doug PotterNaturally, Reagan was disturbed to find competitors horning in on its turf, and last May proposed a remedy to the Planning Commission: an amendment to the ordinance that would remove the 20% reduction requirement for replacement signs, which basically would allow Reagan to maintain its existing signs -- and its monopoly -- and prevent competitors from offering landowners more for their space.
The billboard king's request has created an unlikely confluence of interests between Reagan and Scenic Austin, a local anti-billboard nonprofit organization led by architect Girard Kinney. Scenic Austin supports removing the reduction provision and instituting a moratorium on all new billboards. Opposing them are other local billboard companies, as well as some anti-billboarders who think that reducing the size of the signs is the best way to ultimately be rid of them.
Reagan's outside counsel, Diana Granger of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Field, argued that if Reagan's monopoly keeps prices low, landowners would ultimately be inspired to seek another use for their property: "The less valuable a piece of property is, the more likely it is that landowner will sell it; find another use for it. If you believe competition is important, you're going to extend [the life of billboards]," she said.
Conversely, Councilmember Bill Spelman pointed out that Reagan could still face competition -- if not from another sign company, then from competing land uses for which owners could make more off their land. If a landowner tried to change the land use, Reagan could cut the owner in for more of the profits the company reaps from advertisers. And a big sign will be more valuable in the long run than a small one. "I feel a little bit bad about this, because I put the idea in their head," Spelman said.
Ron Mullen, who served as the city's mayor when the anti-billboard provision came into being in 1983, objected to Granger's insistence that protecting Reagan would result in fewer signs: "I have never heard such red herrings. Listen to what Reagan says. They're not trying to get rid of signs, they're trying to keep their monopoly. It's as clear as can be. Reagan signs are going to be there for 150 years." Mullen was referring to the state law allowing the sign owner to spend up to 60% of the billboards' original cost on repairs at a given time, which effectively allows the owner to replace the sign in a piecemeal fashion over the period of a few days.
The billboard question is a true head-scratcher: Is there any value in encouraging competition in an industry that the city may decide to run out of business? Would competition somehow hasten the demise of billboards in Austin? The billboard tycoons at Reagan want us to believe it won't. If you feel you can shed light on this, come on down to City Council and have your three-minute say. The vote on the billboard ordinance is scheduled for Feb. 25.
East Cesar Chavez PlansA hot tip for all you real estate speculators hoping there's still room to make a killing in the Austin real estate market: Go East. According to Councilmember Gus Garcia, the East Cesar Chavez neighborhood is the next Hyde Park. The occasion of his remark was the presentation of the E. Cesar Chavez Neighborhood Plan to council at last Wednesday's work session. Both the planners and the council celebrated the neighborhood participation and consensus building that produced the report: Neighborhood Planning Leadership Team member Lori Cervenka-Renteria pointed out that the participation in the plan had "higher turnout than we have in city council elections, so I hope you take this plan very seriously." The project would cover the areas bounded east and west by I-35 and Chicon Street, and north and south by Town Lake and E. Seventh Street. The mixed-use zoning plan calls for new housing, retail, shops, offices, parks, and light rail. Council will vote on the plan April 15.
Conserving Austin EnergySeveral die-hard and extremely patient environmentalists turned out for a public hearing (which, scheduled for 7:30, didn't start until just before 9pm) to praise Austin Energy's proposed policy outlining its conservation goals. The policy is the result of several months' effort to codify the city's energy conservation standards to ensure the department's continued commitment to conservation following its integration into Austin Energy from the Environmental and Conservation Services Department (not, as last week's "Council Watch" mistakenly implied, to find a quick way to conserve enough energy to avoid delaying the closure of the Holly Power Plant).
The two goals outlined in the policy are:
1. Energy Conservation. Cost-effective conservation programs shall be the first priority in meeting new energy capacity requirements for Austin Energy; and the utility will increase its conservation effort through investigating options including load management programs, building code revisions, appliance and lighting discounts, education programs, and tree planting.
2. Renewable Energy Sources. Expanding renewable energy sources in Austin Energy's portfolio is a priority. Austin Energy's goal is to achieve 5% renewable energy in its portfolio mix by December 31, 2004.
The policy was praised by all those in attendance, with suggestions for improvement made by a few. Council regular and environmental advocate Paul Robbins got his two suggestions -- to include the "elimination of all-electric heating" as a goal, and "consideration of the city purchasing part or all of its electricity from the city's green power program" -- added to the motion to pass the policy.
(What Robbins didn't get was an answer to his question on the fate of lawyer Scott McCullough, who resigned his position as consumer advocate with the city after failing to be informed before the fact of the Austin Energy absorption of the energy conservation department. Conservation Director Roger Duncan and Jesus Garza offered McCullough his job back, and he agreed -- on several conditions, including enhanced conservation efforts within Austin Energy. McCullough's request was submitted in mid-October; he has yet to receive a response. McCullough is still serving the city on ongoing electric rate issues.)
Additionally, activist Gavino Fernandez suggested changes as well, including increasing from 5% to 20% the amount of green power used by the city, and establishing a target date of 2001, instead of 2005, for achieving this goal (Austin city government is the biggest electricity consumer in the city). Other suggestions included one from Ross Smith, who, citing research from the intriguingly named "Dark Skies" Web site, recommended such energy-saving tactics as making sure those lights we do have are used to their optimal efficiency, without waste and light pollution of the sky.
This Week in Council: The council will not meet today, February 18. Councilmembers return to the dais February 25 for a scheduled vote on the billboard ordinance (see above), as well as on the proposed Forum development, although this particular agenda item is likely to be postponed.
