No permit required

An excellent editorial at the Charlotte Observer.

The beginning:

Here's a genuinely troubling idea: Groups of lawmakers in both the House and Senate are proposing to allow billboard companies and businesses to cut a lot more vegetation in the publicly-owned rights of way of many state roads and even some urban ones.

The end:

Given the dramatic change in roadside cutting this bill would allow, and the lack of a groundswell of support for cutting trees and vegetation in the Tar Heel landscape, this legislation ought to go on the cutting block to be sliced, diced and dumped. No DOT permit required.

Watch out for that tree...

For the fourth year in a row, billboard companies want to cut down more trees along North Carolina’s roadsides. This year it’s even worse. A measure before the General Assembly would allow tree-cutting around not just billboards, but all businesses along highways and main roads through our communities.

Currently, local governments and communities have veto power on these types of requests. If HB 1583 becomes law, towns lose that right.

Here's what the bill does:

1. Allows billboard companies to increase the area in front of billboards from which trees could be cut by at least 30%.


2. Roadside businesses would be allowed to cut trees from the public right-of-way; up to 1000 line feet of roadside footage. Language in the bill says thinning should be kept to 20% --but that is 20% of whatever is left from the last cut. Over time, adjacent businesses could theoretically cut a serial swath along a road.


3. For the first time, tree-cutting would be allowed on main arteries through communities, or so-called primary roads that do not receive federal support. In addition to highways, this bill would allow tree cutting along well-known community arteries like Glenwood Avenue in Raleigh and Durham's Gregson/Duke Streets.


4. Local governments lose veto power. Current rules require that state vegetation removal defer to local ordinances, but such language is missing in this bill.

Of course, we hope you contact your representative.

"Billboards don't kill people, trees kill people"

Thus spoke Tony Adams, Executive Director of the N.C. Outdoor Advertising Association, according to attendees of a long ago NCGA committee meeting. Right now, industry lobbyists, which includes Mr. Adams, are pushing to expand the cuttable area around a sign from the state's 250-foot standard to 375 feet. What's so bizarre about the billboard industry isn't its severe irrationality, but the weird phrases that flit in and out of their tree-targeting press releases and statements.

Take, for example, the written statement quoted in the News and Observer of Betty Waller - billboard lawyer, resident of Cary - to the Department of Transportation:

"NCDOT has demonstrated an unyielding preference for vegetation, and has been unwilling to adopt a vegetation policy equally accomodating to commerce."

An unyielding preference for vegetation? As opposed to what, a realtor profile?

Betty Waller also tried to get North Carolina to stop publishing its Illegal Cutting Inventory, which catalogues every reported violation of the 250-ft cutting rule in the state. Her argument:

Including billboard company names in the document implies billboard operators are engaged in criminal conduct, damages their reputations and prejudices legislators and the public.

Well, yeah. These companies are violating state law. It follows, then, that they are engaged in criminal conduct. Perhaps there is a lawyerly distinction I'm missing here; I doubt it.

Again, to just pull from the N & O article, I'm going to give one more piece of ridiculous billboard propoganda: "An environmentalist should support this bill (in reference to the change in cuttable area)." That would be Tony Adams again. It might be my unyielding preference for vegetation, but I'm pretty positive in this case I have "unyielding preference for vegetation."