Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />governments to require removal of existing <br />billboards through amortization. The only <br />option left is paying cash compensation. The <br />federal Highway Beautification Act, which was <br />modified many years ago under industry pres- <br />sure, also prohibits amortization and requires <br />cash compensation for billboard removaL <br />With the amortization option unavailable, <br />some cities and counties have struck deals with <br />billboard companies requiring them to remove <br />two boards for every newone they install. Other <br />jurisdictions have established simple no-net- <br />increase policies. Although many communities <br />have hadsuccess with these approaches, in the <br /> <br />last few years the industry has devised a liti- <br />gious tactic to secure new billboard permits. <br />Billboard companies challenge the constitution- <br />ality of a sign provision, and when the ordi- <br />nance is in legal limbo, they rush in to secure <br />billboard permits. <br />The American Planning Association has <br />joined Scenic America, the International <br />Municipal Lawyers Association, and others in fil- <br />ing amicus curiae briefs in many ofthese cases <br />to show the CDurtS the industry's pattern of con- <br />duct and deliberate strategy to circumvent local <br />sign codes. A review in January 2006 found 113 <br />such "shakedown" sign cases filed in the federal <br /> <br />The emergence of the highly lucrative digital <br />billboards has given local governments some leverage <br />to at least reduce the total number of billboards. <br /> <br />courts since 1997, and eight filed in state courts <br />in the same time period. For more information <br />visit the APA Amicus Curiae webpage at www. <br />planning.org/ am icusbriefs. <br />The emergence of the highly lucrative <br />digital billboards has also, however, given <br />local governments some leverage to at least <br />reduce the total number of billboards. Many <br />ofthe applications cities are seeing for the <br />video billboards are requests by companies to <br />replace the static type with the new vicJeo dis. <br />plays in key locations. The added revenue <br />potential from a digital format h.as proved to <br />be enough of an incentive to get companies <br />to agree to remove multiple static billboards <br />in exchange for permits to install video dis- <br />play in certain locations. <br />In June 2007, Minnetonka, Minnesota, in <br />the Twin Cities area, reached a settlement with <br />Clear Channel in which the company agreed to <br /> <br /> <br />"0 <br />~ <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br />0: <br />~ <br />~ <br /> <br />ZONING PRACTICE 4.08 <br />AMERICAN PlANN!NG ASSOCIATION I PQ4"5 <br />