Showing posts tagged “electronic billboards”
Samiha Khanna ·
3 Mar 2010, 4:43 PM ·
1 Comment
After a meeting of city and county elected officials, it doesn’t appear that the City Council or County Commissioners will be reconsidering the Durham’s 26-page ordinance on signage any time soon. When asked by Durham’s planning department whether it’s time to revisit the ordinance, Durham leaders vehemently answered, “No.”
“I personally am not in favor of opening the sign ordinance,” said City Councilwoman Diane Catotti, at Wednesday’s meeting of Durham’s Joint City-County Planning Committee, for which she is chairwoman. “I think it’s a lot cleaner in terms of litigation to support the sign ordinance in place. I do fear litigation. It’s a lengthy and costly process and I don’t think I have to remind any of you that the city has significant litigation still pending. I’ll just say ‘lacrosse.’”
Catotti commented that sign litigation is a prominent form of action taken against governments, and that Durham itself went through a nearly 10-year battle over a signage lawsuit from the 1980s and 1990s that cost the city nearly $1.5 million. Continue reading »
Durham, Durham County, North Carolina, news, politics campaign contributions, City of Durham, Diane Catotti, Durham City Council, Durham County Commissioners, Durham JCCPC, Durham Planning Commission, Durham planning department, Durham politics, electronic billboards, Ellen Reckhow, Fairway, litigation, Patrick Byker, Steve Medlin, Unified Development Ordinance
Lisa Sorg ·
10 Jul 2009, 2:56 PM ·
6 Comments
This post was updated at 10 a.m., Saturday, July 11.
Like an itinerant preacher, Patrick Byker has scoured nearly every corner of Durham proselytizing the gospel according to Fairway Outdoor Advertising: That billboards are selfless benefactors for communities and add to the common good.
So it’s not surprising that on his tour to convince Durham leaders of billboards’ healing qualities, he stopped by his old stomping grounds: The City-County Crime Cabinet, for which he served as secretary from 1997 to 1999.
Byker, now an attorney with K&L Gates, was one of several hired guns for Fairway Outdoor Advertising, which is lobbying to amend the city-county Unified Development Ordinance to allow digital billboards, among other changes.
Of the 89 billboards in Durham County, 47 are owned by Fairway. Under Fairway/ K&L Gates’ proposal, one quarter of Durham’s billboards—22—would be converted to digital, meaning a static, not flashing, message would change every eight seconds. While Byker showed the public service aspect of the signs—examples included “We Salute Our Heroes” from a billboard in South Carolina—he also played the fear card.
Byker criticized the Amber Alert/ Silver Alert system, which displays information on signs over North Carolina’s interstates, for only telling the public to call 5-1-1. (That number gives callers the same information distributed to the media. The N.C. Department of Transportation regulates the signs.)
“I don’t think it’s effective,” Byker said. “We can put a face on a billboard.”
However, an N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety official told the Indy that “If you put too much information on signs, that’s a distraction.”
According to the Crime Control department, since January, it has issued 11 Amber Alerts and 113 Silver Alerts statewide. (The Web site lists data through May; no Amber Alerts were issued during that time in the Triangle.)
amber_quarterly-2009
silver_quarterly2009
Byker further pushed his case that digital billboards could help Durham with locating lost elderly people through a Silver Alert system broadcast on digital billboards. He cited one estimate (not by the U.S. Census) that 22 percent of Durham’s population will be older than 55 by 2011. The message: Soon we will be old and doddering. Who will help us? Digital billboards.
“This is an opportunity for Durham to be a regional leader for the Silver Alert system,” Byker said.
Of the 100 Silver Alerts issued through May, four of them were in Durham County. Wake County had 9; Orange County also had four.
Durham Police Chief Jose Lopez chimed in: “This is my professional opinion, not a personal one. There is no indication billboards cause accidents. It could only help in getting law enforcement message across.”
As for the aesthetics, he said, “It’s in the eye of the beholder,” adding “Either we agree with this company or the one in the future if we sell the billboards.” (Actually, the city and county could disagree with any company seeking to amend the UDO.)
County Commissioner Ellen Reckhow, who co-chairs the Crime Cabinet with City Councilman Howard Clement, asked Byker how much information people can absorb in eight seconds.
“I think it’s as much time as a person needs,” he replied. He offered no studies to back up his assertion.
Reckhow also quizzed Byker on how drivers would remember the information on the billboards, which can include the name of the missing person, the description and license plate number of a car and a phone number.
“Their passengers could take it down,” Byker replied.
Nearly three-quarters of Durham County commuters drive alone, according to the N.C. Commerce Department. This number does not account for people who are not driving to work.
Nearly 15 citizens’ and neighborhood groups oppose amending the ordinance to allow digital billboards.
City Councilman Howard Clement, a member of the Crime Cabinet, was apparently swayed by Byker’s presentation: “There is new information today. I think we need a massive re-education. So far, the issue has been one-sided. We’re not getting a balanced presentation.”
However, no community members or billboard opponents were allowed to offer their presentations.
For other blog posts on the billboard issue, go to our archives.
Durham, Durham County, news electronic billboards, Ellen Reckhow, Fairway Outdoor Advertising, Howard Clement, K&L Gates, Patrick Byker
Lisa Sorg ·
25 Mar 2009, 8:11 AM ·
3 Comments
Thanks to Dependable Erection’s Barry Ragin for filing this dispatch for the Indy on last night’s INC vote on the billboard issue:
Last night’s Inter-Neighborhood Council vote on two competing resolutions
regarding billboards in Durham was something of an anti-climax. The
first resolution urges city and county planners to make no changes to
the current Unified Development Ordinance, under which all billboards
are non-conforming uses which can only be maintained, not upgraded. A
number of delegates spoke in support of this resolution, but it was Tom
Miller of Watts Hospital-Hillandale who made the point that any change
to the ordinance has the effect of making billboards legal and
conforming uses under code, thereby making them permanent parts of the
landscape. As non-conforming uses, billboards can not be replaced, for
example, if they are destroyed by an act of God, or if they are taken by
a highway widening project. Miller pointed out that since Durham banned
billboards in 1984, the billboard population has dropped from a little
over 200, to a little less than 100, and that another dozen or so
billboards are scheduled to come down over the next few years.
This resolution passed overwhelmingly, with one negative vote, and
several abstentions.
The competing resolution, which has been presented as the “digital
billboard” proposal, was defeated by a similar margin garnering two
positive votes. Arguments in favor of digital billboards rested mainly
on their ability to inform travelers of destinations and events in
downtown Durham, and their use to disseminate Amber and Silver Alert
information. It was pointed out that both city and county attorneys have
expressed the opinion that requiring digital billboards to display any
form of PSA as a matter of statute would be unconstitutional.
The most interesting vote, from my perspective, came from the Rockwood
Neighborhood. As the Indy noted in its Triangulator blog, Patrick Byker,
an attorney for K&L Gates, which counts Fairway Outdoor Advertising
among its clients, basically appointed himself as Rockwood’s delegate to
the INC last month by paying the $25 annual dues. Rockwood was one of
the neighborhoods abstaining from the vote. It would be interesting to
see the discussion that may have taken place on Rockwood’s email list
about what position their neighborhood would take during tonight’s vote.
Durham, Durham County, news electronic billboards, Inc, K&L Gates, Patrick Byker
Lisa Sorg ·
24 Mar 2009, 5:48 PM ·
6 Comments
Durham’s Inter-Neighborhood Council is scheduled to vote on the billboard issue tonight at 7, according to Bull City Rising. So it’s not a coincidence that Patrick Byker, a lawyer for K&L Gates, the firm representing the billboard company seeking significant changes to the city’s billboard ordinance, apparently is looking to get (re)involved in the INC. See below for his email to his neighborhood association. Craige Sanders, another K&L attorney, is already INC president.
> From: Patrick Byker <pbyker@nc.rr.com>
> To: list for members of the RNA <rna@listserv.unc.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2009 5:30:33 PM
> Subject: [rna] Patrick Byker serving as representative at InterNeighborhood
> Council
>
> Good evening, Rockwood Neighbors–
>
> Hope you all are doing well on this stormy evening. I’m sure I know many of
> the folks on the listserv even though Ingrid and I have not been on it for a
> while. For those of you in Rockwood who don’t know us, we’ve lived at 2614
> Stuart (gray two story house between Steele and Woodridge) for almost 15 years
> now. Back in the day, we hosted one or two of the neighborhood meetings at
> our place.
>
> Anyway, one of my colleagues at work, Craig Sanders, is the current president
> of the Durham InterNeighborhood Council (INC) and as part of his leadership he
> is trying to get more neighborhoods involved in INC. So, assuming that no one
> would object, I paid the $25 annual dues for Rockwood, and I started attending
> the INC meetings last month. The INC meetings are on the 4th Tuesday evening
> of each month, from 7:00 to 9:00 at the Herald-Sun building on Pickett Road.
> Would anyone be interested in being an alternate?
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks a bunch!
>
> Warm regards–
>
> Patrick Byker
Durham, Durham County, news Craige Sanders, electronic billboards, Inter-Neighborhood Council, K&L Gates, Patrick Byker
Matt Saldaña ·
16 Feb 2009, 4:55 PM ·
2 Comments
Note: Updated, with response from DDI President Bill Kalkhof below.
Today, Kevin Davis, the Bull City Rising scribe, notes a peculiar make-over at the Downtown Durham, Inc. Web site. The non-profit booster organization, which receives roughly 60 percent of its funding from the City of Durham, now features on its Web site a giant electronic billboard, replete with alternating flash images, soaring over a skyline of the Bull City.
“Coincidence — or subtle marketing for the proposed changes allowing billboards in the Bull City?” Davis muses.
With questions swirling around a Georgia-based billboard company seeking to amend Durham’s Unified Development Ordinance to allow electronic billboards, it seems an unfortunate time for DDI to roll out the striking re-design.
In addition to donating to candidates for both City Council and the Durham County Board of Commissioners, Fairway Outdoor Advertising–which owns roughly half the billboards in Durham–has doled out free advertising space to Durham County and DDI. (Last month, DDI reached no consensus on a vote to endorse the amendment, and later wrote to Fairway explaining the vote.)
In a January 2009 interview with the Indy, Kalkhof insisted that there is “no quid pro quo” between Fairway and DDI, which credits itself with influencing downtown development policy in Durham. In that interview, Kalkhof noted that the relationship between his organization and Fairway began in 2007, when Fairway provided DDI with free advertising for Durham Rising, a June 2007 event promoting downtown development.
“This has nothing to do with the UDO,” Kalkhof said then. “It was an excellent marketing opportunity. That has been our relationship.”
However, in reporting on the DDI re-design, Davis received a response from Matthew Coppedge, director of marketing and communications for DDI, that seems to contradict Kalkhof’s timeline:
“This design was actually up long before Fairway was a partner with DDI and before we knew anything about the discussion with the billboards. We worked with Neural 9 Studios (located in downtown) on this beginning in August of 2007 with the concept coming from them at that time. We received our first prototype of the site on 9/28/2007 and thought it was a very cool design, allowing for the full downtown skyline view and the changing nighttime scene (check the site after sundown). Anyway, we launched the site in early 2008 after final design completion in November of 2007.”
Davis writes that this should put the issue to rest–and, indeed, sometimes a re-design is just a redesign–but there’s a missing link that Coppedge chose not to disclose. Neural 9 designed the Web site for Durham Rising, of which both DDI and Fairway were sponsors. (Full discolsure: so was the Indy.) And according to Kalkhof, DDI’s relationship with Fairway also began with Durham Rising, when Fairway provided DDI with free billboard space for the event. In other words, August 2007, the date Coppedge offers for DDI’s initial work with Neural 9, happened after DDI had partnered with Fairway–not, as Coppedge insists, “long before Fairway was a partner with DDI.”
UPDATE @ 6:00 p.m.: DDI President Kalkhof called the Indy back shortly after this blog was posted. Read his response, after the jump.
Continue reading »
Durham, Durham County Bill Kalkhof, DDI, Downtown Durham, Durham County Commissioners, electronic billboards, Fairway Outdoor Advertising
Lisa Sorg ·
16 Jan 2009, 9:36 AM ·
Comment
Downtown Durham, Inc. President Bill Kalkhof sent a letter to Fairway Outdoor Advertising GM Paul Hickman explaining the reason for the DDI board’s vote to take no action on a proposed amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance that would allow electronic billboards in Durham.
You can read the full letter here. kalkhofletter
In essence, Kalkhof wrote, the 45-member board’s discussion focused on three main areas: the repair and landscaping of billboards currently in our community; the possible relocation of billboards within the community; and, the issue of allowing digital billboards.
As for the most contentious issue, electronic, or digital, billboards, Kalkhof wrote that
If one assumes that digital billboards are an effective message provider, some Board members saw value in digital billboards as they relate to marketing downtown events, providing opportunities for less expensive marketing for downtown businesses, and providing amber alerts and other emergency messages that could benefit our community. On the other hand, other Board members were concerned about the visual impact of digital billboards, especially since no one could be certain where future digital billboards might be located (other than on main corridors, and near commercial areas), and what impact they might have on any neighborhood (some neighborhoods may be located near commercial areas) in Durham. Since Board members were simply not knowledgeable about where digital billboards would be located, and therefore would not know what impact they might have on any neighborhood, Board members could not reach any consensus.
Durham, Durham County, Uncategorized, business Bill Kalkhof, Downtown Durham, electronic billboards, Fairway Outdoor Advertising, Inc
Lisa Sorg ·
16 Jan 2009, 8:19 AM ·
Comment
The Indy learned earlier this morning that the DDI Board of Directors could not reach a consensus, which translates to taking no action, on the electronic billboard issue yesterday. The board held a meeting to vote on whether to endorse an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance that would allow electronic billboards in Durham.
Check back later today for updates.
Durham, Durham County, business DDI, electronic billboards
Lisa Sorg ·
14 Jan 2009, 6:33 PM ·
2 Comments
A Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce memo chambermemo reveals that its Local Government Committee and Executive Committee “enthusiastically and unanimously” recommend that the Chamber board endorse an proposed amendment to Durham’s Unified Development Ordinance that would allow electronic billboards in the city and county.
The Downtown Durham, Inc. board is scheduled to vote on the proposed amendment tomorrow morning. DDI is not required to announce the results of the vote, but executive director Bill Kalkhof told the Indy earlier this week that he is considering it because of the public interest in the issue.
The amendment would have to jump through several governmental hoops in order to pass, including Durham County Commission and Durham City Council.
Durham, Durham County, business, politics DDI, electronic billboards, Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce
Lisa Sorg ·
12 Jan 2009, 6:20 PM ·
Comment
Downtown Durham, Inc. Executive Director Bill Kalkhof called the Indy today to emphasize that there is “no quid pro quo” between the nonprofit group and billboard company Fairway. He added that the relationship between DDI, charged with boosting downtown interests, and Fairway, which has given DDI space on its billboards, predates the current dust up over a proposed amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that would allow electronic billboards to be erected in Durham.
Kalkhof said DDI worked with Fairway ago for Durham Rising, a 2007 celebration of downtown’s renovated streetscape; DDI received free billboard space, but paid roughly $550 for the production of the message posted on the board.
“This has nothing to do with the UDO,” Kalkhof said. “It was an excellent marketing opportunity. That has been our relationship.” Continue reading »
Durham, Durham County, Uncategorized, business, politics Bill Kalkof, DDI, electronic billboards, Fairway
Lisa Sorg ·
12 Jan 2009, 1:00 PM ·
1 Comment
County Commissioner candidate Fred Foster Jr. received a $1,602 loan from Craigie Sanders of K&L Gates (formerly known as Kennedy Covington Lobdell & Hickman), the firm representing Fairway in the latest electronic billboard dispute. Coincidentally, Sanders also was treasurer of Foster’s unsuccessful election campaign, according to fred_foster_28apr2008. fred_foster_10july2008
The loan was repaid; Foster also received $300 from Fairway Communications bigwig William Morris III.
In addition to contributing to City Council campaigns, Morris and others invested in electronic billboards gave to other county commissioner candidates, campaign finance reports show.
Morris gave $300 to candidate Josh Parker josh_parker_28apr20081, Patrick Byker, another K&L lawyer, contributed $100.josh_parker_21july2008
We’re still adding the numbers; check back soon for more financial disclosures.
Update: Commissioner Michael Page received $100 from Sanders and $500 from Morris.michael_page_24july2008-amended
Commissioner Ellen Reckhow received $500 from Morris. ellen_reckhow_10july2008
Commissioner Becky Heron received a $500 check from Morris, but she limits her contributions to no more than $200. ” I sent it back,” she told the Indy. “I never heard from them.”
Durham, Durham County, Uncategorized, business, politics Add new tag, Craigie Sanders, electronic billboards, Ellen Reckhow, Fairway, Fred Foster Jr, Josh Parker, K&L Gates, Michael Page, William Morris
