|
|
| |
|
Anakronism |
on 11 December 2009, at 13:36, writes: |
| |
Digital Jumbotrons along highways are safety issues. Drivers are distracted by the changing messages (right now @ a max. of 1 change per 8 seconds). There are several studies currently underway regarding just how distracting these things are and preliminary indications suggest that their conclusions will not be favorable to the off premise outdoor advertising industry.
In the mean time, ClearChannel et.al. have been lobbying hard to get the minimum change times reduced to even less than 8 seconds.
If you think these things aren't a major distraction, try driving in the rain at night along S.R.8 or I-77 and you will see what I mean. At 53, my glare recovery isn't what it used to be, so I may be a little biased, but even so, in the rain these things light up every drop of water on the windscreen.
But then, according to Clear Channel representative David Yale, all this is offset by the fact that we can flash amber alerts on the Jumbotrons.
Unfortunately, our concerned Mayor seems to agree. |
|
|
sigh |
on 8 December 2009, at 18:55, writes: |
| |
I don't see how converting a regular billboard to a digital billboard makes much difference. Yeah, ok, they are multicolored and bright, but it's not like most of these aren't next to the expressway in the city anyway. I am all for restricting putting up any completely new billboards though... definitely not an aesthetic positive, for sure. |
|
|
LR |
on 8 December 2009, at 08:12, writes: |
| |
From the Beacon briefs:
Billboard OK'd
AKRON: City Council last night approved Clear Channel Communications' request to convert an existing billboard into a digital display.
Clear Channel, which owns most of the billboards in Akron, intends to bring the digital sign to its sign on the north side of Interstate 277 near Wooster Road.
Council approved the measure unanimously, despite objections from some residents who raised questions of safety and appearance.
The legislation was council's first since adopting new billboard regulations last year.
Akron put a moratorium on new billboards last year after a public outcry when an Indiana company erected new billboards in a dozen locations around the city.
Clear Channel, which opposed the new restrictions council adopted, plans to use a conditional-use permit to convert its west-facing billboard to advertise Coca-Cola. The new sign is expected to be operating within 60 days. |
|
|
Christine Freitag |
on 30 November 2009, at 16:51, writes: |
| |
This was my testimony this after noon. I was the only one there who spoke except for David Vale, VP Clear Channel. He spoke extensively about the safety Issue [claims they are!] and their public service with Amber alerts.
All the At Large Council members were there plus the committee so there is no point in testifying again. Therefore here is my testimony and I do not plan to go down tonight, Christine
To the Akron City Council’s Economic Development Committee
Re: PC-2009-75-CU- Petition of Clear Channel Outdoor for a Conditional Use to convert an existing billboard panel to digital at 2474 28th Street SW.
A group of us who worked very hard to make billboard permitting a conditional use regret that we were not notified to testify before the Planning Commission. An oversight, I’ve been told.
The Economic and Development Committee should be concerned that the City of Akron is creating a possible legal problem for the City if the feds determine certain electronic billboards are unsafe. A Federal Highway Administration research project on the safety of digital billboards is currently underway with preliminary results expected soon with a formal report in 2010
Meanwhile, the report completed by Jerry Wachtel, “Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs” completed for The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASSHTO) should serve as a warning. This study recommends policies to improve the safety of digital billboards by severely limiting appropriate locations for the signs and establishing new criteria governing sign behavior. A 100 Driver study found eyes off the road for two or more seconds dramatically increases the risk of a crash or near crash, and a recent Australian study found older and younger inexperienced drivers are more vulnerable to billboard related crashes.
As I testified last summer, Akron would be wise to place a moratorium on any digital signs until new guidelines are completed. If existing signs do not conform, their removal could cost the city a great deal of money. Ohio law now reads that billboard removal requires “just compensation” to the owner. In addition, there is the issue of citizen litigation after an accident if a sign determined to be dangerous is not removed. I realize that Clear Channel threats of litigation if they don’t get what they want plus their successful lobbying efforts have a huge impact on decisions made in this City Council. What ever permitting the City does, the law department should make certain the City is protected from future lawsuits.
The City of Akron takes great pride in highway beautification and rightly so. A beautiful city attracts economic development. I disagree with the Planning Department’s comment that “digital displays can provide a more visually appealing presentation than traditional billboards. Beautiful communities do not have billboards.
Christine Freitag,
The Akron Garden Club
As I was leaving I told them I was donating the 2 volume
"Smart Growth" from the Amerrican Planning Association. It contains model leg. for all kinds of smart growth issues, including citizen input in aesthetics and neighborhood designs and mentioned that if they ever ask the citizens how they'd like to see their neighborhoods look, I'd like to find out if the Akron Garden club members are the only ones who think billboards are awful! |
|
|
Anakronism |
on 5 August 2009, at 09:10, writes: |
| |
Thanks for the clarification, Muggs. I worry the site is perceived to be slanted one way or another, though in reality, it slants the way the people that post lean...as it should.
I have my own slant, obviously, but we really try to allow all opposing views...as long as they are civil. It is a fine line around here. |
|
|
Muggs |
on 5 August 2009, at 08:55, writes: |
| |
Absolutely not. That's not what I said. I appreciate this website and the work that's put into it. I'm saying people can use this site along with the issue of crime to continue their personal dislike of the mayor. He may not be perfect as well as the Recallers are not perfect (neither am I)but he has been a good mayor. |
|
|
Anakronism |
on 4 August 2009, at 08:26, writes: |
| |
Muggs, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by the "use of this forum" is a reason to get rid of the mayor. Does someone believe this website is intended to slander the mayor or something? |
|
|
Muggs |
on 4 August 2009, at 08:21, writes: |
| |
Thanks, Anak, I appreciate your post and agree with it. Name calling and unsubstantiated blame gets us nowhere. What I'm hearing here is the use of this forum and crime as another reason to get rid of the mayor. Let it go, folks. Mayor won the recall action! |
|
|
Anakronism |
on 3 August 2009, at 09:45, writes: |
| |
Muggs...I know, I know. O-C is not blameless. Allow me to clarify. That message is intended for everyone. I singled out martin because his posts have been paticularly derogatory, and unsubstantiated over this last weekend...while O-C has been tempered a bit in her recent posts.
By the way, nobody is at risk of being silenced by disagreeing with me. That is fine, of course. BUT...as the guidelines above ask, "harrassing" and "defamitory" behavior is inappropriate.
Our intent is to not have this forum turn into a bash session, but to discuss ideas. The fact that anonymous posting is permitted does mean that manners go out the window.
Everybody would do well to consider 'sigh's posts. They are generally factual (at least backed up) and he/she takes great care not to be unnecessarily rude or condescending. |
|
|
Muggs |
on 3 August 2009, at 09:25, writes: |
| |
Whoa, Anakronism. The person I see hurling insults is O-Cyndie. She is blaming everyone for the problems. She even blamed those of us who were against the recall of the mayor for the crime in HS (see her posting on Crime Watch). I know I'm taking a risk now of being silenced by you but I had to say what I read on these postings. |
|
|
Anakronism |
on 3 August 2009, at 08:38, writes: |
| |
You know martin, O-Cyndie may have a slightly over the top delivery, but at least some of the things she is saying make sense. On the other hand, your argumentative 'style' consists not of providing legitimate rebuttal to her statements, but meerly insults.
If you want to keep posting here, please drop the insults. They are inflametory and distract from the real issues at hand. Dave and I created this website for intelligent discussion of issues. Continuous name calling and juvenile mud slinging are not our responsibility to support.
The Beacon Journal Forums offer a venue which permits the behavior you and a few others have exhibited here over the last several days. You might want to consider taking your dialog there. |
|
|
martin |
on 2 August 2009, at 16:55, writes: |
| |
You are right OMG. When I bought my house 15 years ago - I would walk around HS at any time of night without a concern. Not any more.
Still, there is a difference between been righteous and self-righteous, as I am sure you understand.
Non-original cydie does not. |
|
|
|
|
