Billboard op-ed misled

As representatives from the advertising industry, we are proud partners with many businesses that seek new opportunities by advertising on digital billboards. We are equally proud of our participation in the public discussion about digital billboards in Marion County.

Unfortunately, as was evident in Donna Sink’s [May 4 Viewpoint], those opposed to billboards are not basing their position on facts.

Proposal 250, now before the City-County Council, is only a starting point for moving the issue of digital billboards to the Department of Metropolitan Development for review, comments and recommendation, and on to the Metropolitan Development Commission for consideration.

Our discussions with the council on this issue began in 2011 when we met openly to solicit their input, address specific concerns and begin outlining language for what became Proposal 250. Together, we reviewed the ordinances of more than 1,000 communities that allow digital billboards. And those discussions continue with ample public input.

Despite what you’ve read, the ordinance does not allow flashing, motion or even the illusion of movement. In fact, the proposal adds provisions specific to digital billboards that are more restrictive than current law for traditional billboards.

We have suggested increased spacing between digital billboards, protecting certain districts, reducing the overall number of billboards and removing an equal amount of square footage of existing billboards for any conversion to digital. Plus, no new billboards are allowed where a billboard has been removed as part of a conversion.

____________

Chris Iversen, vice president, Lamar Advertising;
Mitch Matson, vice president, Outfront Media;
Brett Beshore, division president, Clear Channel Outdoor