Now
Fair
81.0°
High
84°
Low
66°

Billboards OK, but no animation

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By MARK ANDERSEN / Lincoln Journal Star

Tuesday, Dec 05, 2006 - 12:13:46 am CST

Democrats drew the line at animation.

Digital billboards larger than 80 square feet will be allowed to make their changing pitch to passing Lincoln motorists, the City Council decided Monday.

They also can be slightly brighter at night than first suggested, and the transition between lighted messages must last no longer than 1 second — it was 3 seconds during a public hearing in November.

Story Photo
The City Council Monday decided to allow Anderson Ford's 360-square-foot electronic sign, which was erected six years ago after the city mistakenly issued a building permit to allow it. (Gwyneth Roberts)

But animation is out.

Too much of an eyesore, too distracting to drivers, argued Councilman Jonathan Cook, who derided the signs as “TV on a stick.”

Councilman Ken Svoboda objected to the term and the limitation.

With animated signs at the Journal Star printing plant and at the Lied Center for Performing Arts, “Never have I taken my eyes off the road to view a sign,” Svoboda said.

With costs of $30,000 to $50,000 per sign, he said, the city’s limitation on animation would chill the desire of retailers for these signs.

“We’re not going to see TVs on a stick,” he said. The signs simply draw somebody’s attention for brief moments.

Cook argued the technology would only get cheaper and become more pervasive. There’s a reason automakers place in-car DVD players where drivers can’t see them, he said, drawing a parallel with digital billboards.

Restrictions always can be made more lenient, Cook said, but it’s tougher to restrict something once it’s been allowed.

Councilwoman Robin Eschliman said the council should allow animation and stop thwarting retailers.

“We need to remember who’s paying the bills in this community,” Eschliman said.

Councilwoman Patte Newman said the rules the Democrats proposed would allow businesses to attract customers without distracting drivers.

Voting to limit animation were Democrats Newman, Cook, Dan Marvin and Annette McRoy. In support of animation were Republicans Jon Camp, Svoboda and Eschliman.

In a related matter, the council agreed to let stand Anderson Ford’s illegal electronic sign along Interstate 80 and 27th Street. The sign was erected six years ago after the city erroneously issued a permit for it. The mistake was caught two years later. Anderson tried various ways of legalizing the sign before injecting it into the digital billboard debate.

The council voted to legitimize the sign for a period of 10 years, provided that no major changes are made to it and that it immediately complies with new illumination standards.

In other business, the council approved the issuance of $3.5 million in bonds for the Nebraska School Activities Project, office buildings north of Haymarket Park. The bonds, which hold tax advantages for investors, will be repaid through a 20-year lease with the city. Construction could start in January with completion as early as October.

Reach Mark Andersen at 473-7238 or mandersen@journalstar.com


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Annoyed wrote on December 5, 2006 7:34 am:
" My question is has the sign up by Anderson Ford ever been stated as the reason someone had an accident? Did they say they drove off the road because the sign distracted them? I very much think otherwise. That sign is not distracting. I actually like the sign. It helps me tell people how to get to my house. I tell then to take the exit closest to the big anderson ford sign. Get over it Democrats, you aren't God so stop trying to be. "

lynn wrote on December 5, 2006 7:56 am:
" what about the sign at Fazolies at 47th and Vine? "

Dawg wrote on December 5, 2006 8:46 am:
" Here's cook again lets keep us in horse and buggies. get with the times, cell phones are more distracting than animated signs. Cooks old generation thinking again. "

JC wrote on December 5, 2006 9:32 am:
" Another set back for businesses trying to operate in Lincoln. This is such a non issue, I find this embarrassing for the city. Very disappointed in John Cook after this. "

Jim wrote on December 5, 2006 9:50 am:
" This council again shows its antibusiness face. "

Signs wrote on December 5, 2006 10:24 am:
" Ok, now that we have regulated billboards/animated signs, lets move onto Christmas lights. I think Cook and the rest of our government can find a way to scrutinize Christmas lights. After that they can regulate when everyone is allowed to turn on their headlights during the day, because headlights during the day are just too distracting. The government needs to stop meddling in things that are inconsequential, they should be more concerned with their budget than whether or not a billboard is animated or not. I'm suprised they haven't said anything about the GIANT screen from Memorial Stadium that can be seen from miles away filled with advertising. "

CP wrote on December 5, 2006 10:32 am:
" Oh please, everyone has driven by a bank sign and checked the time or the temp without running anyone over. It’s not streaming video on Husker Vision via the Jumbo-tron. Its just light bulbs turning off and on for a very basic graphics, I really wonder just who's best interest our council has at heart. Put away the personal power tripping agenda, and let’s let common sense prevail Mr. Camp. "

JJ wrote on December 5, 2006 10:42 am:
" It won't allow animation??? What does that mean? I can't believe the city of Lincoln. If it continues to not allow the progression of businesses then the big businesses will not look to stay in or come to Lincoln. So much for growth. "

Agreed wrote on December 5, 2006 11:13 am:
" If the sign is so distracting, prove it. How many wrecks were caused by a sign? I'm guessing right around zero. Show me the evidence that an 80sqft sign is safer than a 360 sqft? Besides how large are the road condition signs that the state dept of roads operates? "

TG wrote on December 5, 2006 11:36 am:
" Are you serious Jon Cook? This man's credibility continues to decline rapidly. I hate to be cliche, but has he ever heard of "pick your battles"? This seems to be a ridiculous fight that tied up our City Council. I agree----its time to Jon Cook to either get with the times or get a new job. "

amazed wrote on December 5, 2006 11:38 am:
" All signs are dangerous as they are a distraction no matter what. A few seconds of yours eyes off the road while you are the driver can and does cause accidents, that is a proven fact, even without signs being the issue, signs are just futher detrimentally unsafe for drivers.

If business can not promote itself without the use of signs, then to me that business is just barely existing anyway and maybe needs to get out of business.

My idea of good business is great word of mouth advertising anyway, and signs do not increase my chances of visiting that place. So good driving and keep your eyes on the road and the signs will not do any good anyway. Passengers in cars or vehicles should not be asking the driver to wander his or her eyes either, So maybe those on the city council who feel signs are a good thing, maybe they should study how accidents happen and when they happen. Suggestion, how about doing something to bring in good business to town for people to have good jobs, instead of worrying about existing business. Also, find ways to better support the city and the mayor other than taxing people to death.

"


Nate wrote on December 5, 2006 12:05 pm:
" I agree with Cook on this one. Those things are at best an eyesore, and at worst can legitimately cause a hazard to traffic with ludicrous brightness levels and over the top animation. If I lived near one of these businesses, I would be greatly annoyed by the light constantly flashing through my windows at all hours of the night. I wish the JournalStar reported what the maximum size of the signs could be, I think 80 ft^2 is plenty big. The Democrats aren't trying to play god, they're just trying to ensure our city doesn't end up as an over-sprawled eyesore like parts of Omaha. "

Roger wrote on December 5, 2006 12:05 pm:
" Democrats strike again. "Let's keep Lincoln as small-town as possible, no progress, so people can keep asking for handouts...we like that". "

Alan wrote on December 5, 2006 12:11 pm:
" Are you kidding me? You are going to compare an in-car DVD player to a sign that flashes and does things? Who voted for this guy? Can someone tell me the mortality rate in Times Square and on Las Vegas Blvd due to signs that do stuff? Ha ha oh my what a great councilman we have. He is so smart. Oh and one other thing, I can see the memorial stadium score board from the road and it's animated. I think they need to take it down or hide it now. If they don't I may crash my car and I will sue "

Big Red Tank wrote on December 5, 2006 12:42 pm:
" What about the new scoreboard at Memorial Stadium? Would this too fall under the ordinance? It certainly contains video and advertising. It may not fall under the jurisdiction of the city since it is on University ground. I don't know but throw it out there for consideration. "

BLK wrote on December 5, 2006 12:43 pm:
" What a huge impediment to growth of business in Lincoln. Animation would have made all the difference in the world. There are hardly any options for businesses to advertise these days due to the deathgrip City Council has on Lincoln business owners. If only we had more distractions while driving, Lincolnites would buy more stuff from locally-owner retailers. I know I'd spend more if there was a large animated sign telling me to do so. Non-animated signs cause me to clutch my wallet. "

Brian P wrote on December 5, 2006 12:58 pm:
" Very embarrassing is right, Sounds like you need to look out when John Cook is driving around Lincoln. What about billboards? Are they not just like magazines on a stick? What about anything moving when driving. Is this a capital city or a farm town? "

CL wrote on December 5, 2006 1:13 pm:
" I would think that a transition of every one second would be far more distracting than 3 seconds. And the advertiser wouldn't even get their message read at one second intervals.Where is the common sense of our Council? "

didn't know wrote on December 5, 2006 2:41 pm:
" I didn't know the lincoln city limits extended clear out to Interstate 80. Next I will be reading that it will be controlling Waverly township and whatever else it can control. Its only a sign and yet the dealership that put it up can not animate then why did Rod Kush have one that animated his advertisement on N27th but smaller and they DID NOT do anything to him but on I80 they are crying foul??????? "

Oh my... wrote on December 5, 2006 5:20 pm:
" ...I'm happy to see Mr. Cook made it in off the farm long enough to help keep Lincoln as small as posible. Just one more example of Democrates voting against business growth in Lincoln. This is gone on way to long. Remember this vote when it comes to voting for mayor. This is the same group/party as the recent announced mayor candidate Mr. Buetler. He too has a record against business. "

Dale wrote on December 5, 2006 9:52 pm:
" I am glad Lincoln's cosmopolitan appeal is being judged by the number of moving signs in town. "

First Amendment wrote on December 6, 2006 6:06 am:
" Thankfully the Lincoln City Council was not around to debate the First Amendment. Anyone ever hear of commercial free speech? No. I guess those concepts don't apply in the "fly-over" states. Might be why business flies over. "

Steve wrote on December 6, 2006 11:41 am:
" I've been in cities where they have unregulated digital billboards and I HATE them. They are very distracting- that's the reason advertisers like them. They can go dark and then blast the lights which invariably causes your eyes to move to the source of the lights. In rush hour traffic that's all it takes for an elderly person to be distracted long enough to cause an accident. "

Jim wrote on December 6, 2006 3:04 pm:
" Once again the City Council has waved it's wings. They must thing they are the lords of Lincoln. The signs are no more a hazard then they tailgaters, teh drivers that read papers while driving or just don't pay attention while behind the wheel. Mr. cook needs to return to the civilian life and leave politics to someone that wants to have some tax dollars come to lincoln.. "