|
Billboard removal a financial burden for communities
By Jessica Johnson
Contributing Writer
As Charleston’s city limits expand, its borders could fall under the shadows of billboards.
A state law that requires municipalities to offer just compensation for billboard removal would likely leave them standing in cities such as Charleston.
Charleston is one of only a handful of cities that adopted ordinances eliminating non-conforming signs after April 14, 2005, the retroactive date in the state legislation.
Gov. Mark Sanford vetoed the law, but both the South Carolina House of Representatives and the state Senate overturned the veto Feb. 22. But cities can still make new laws requiring sign owners to remove billboards.
“The new law is saying if we enforce that, then we have to pay for the value of that sign, which makes it pretty difficult,” said Yvonne Fortenberry, director of Charleston’s Department of Design, Development and Preservation. “Luckily, Charleston doesn’t have a tremendous number of signs anymore.”
Signs that violate Charleston’s ordinances might come into play in newly annexed parts of the city where billboards already exist. Charleston has long regulated signage in the city; however, only the newest portions of the city zoning ordinance require the removal of non-conforming signs.
If the state law had not been retroactive, Charleston would have removed non-conforming billboards over a number of years. Now the city will also have to offer just compensation.
The just compensation formula is generous toward billboard sign companies, Fortenberry said.
“It’s putting a financial burden on cities and counties that want to improve communities,” she said.
The law says local governments must take many factors into consideration, including future revenues generated by the outdoor advertising signs.
Gary Cannon, director of intergovernmental relations for the South Carolina State Municipality Association, said once they figure in monthly rent and the life of the sign, removal becomes quite expensive.
Robert Croom, South Carolina Association of Counties’ assistant director of legislation and legal affairs, said it would be cost prohibitive to remove a billboard.
“Government has a certain amount of money to spend, and it all comes from taxpayers of some stripe,” Croom said.
When cities and counties weigh whether to take out one sign at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars or put that money into services or tax relief, Croom said, elected officials would likely leave the sign standing.
Despite being exempt from the new rules, area city officials are still concerned with the state law because it essentially strips local governments of their right to govern.
“It is an assault on home rule,” Fortenberry said. “Local government should be able to make decisions on land use and signage. Those decisions should not be made at the state level.”
Scott Shockley, president of the Outdoor Advertising Association of South Carolina, said the county and city need tougher regulations because local governments are more apt to remove signs simply because they don’t want them around.
“The state doesn’t engage in regulatory taking,” Shockley said. The state’s policy has been to relocate signs when moving billboards.
Shockley said the new billboard law requiring just compensation brings South Carolina into the mainstream. Forty-three of 46 states that allow billboards also require just compensation for their removal.
|
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version