Sunday, 27 February 2000
By Tony Davis
The Arizona Daily Star
While Tucson officials and a billboard company battle in court
over more than 100 billboards, the company is pushing legislation
to stop city enforcement efforts.
Phoenix billboard executive Karl Eller has angered some City Council
members and community activists by seeking a new state law to
limit city powers to crack down on illegal billboards.
But he is talking compromise as well.
Eller has met with Mayor Bob Walkup and all but one City Council
member to try to strike a deal.
He is seeking an agreement requiring that some illegal billboards
be torn down but allowing others to stay or be moved, or authorizing
a lesser number of new billboards.
The reaction so far has been mixed. Walkup is open to the idea
but several council members are unwilling to embrace it yet. Anti-billboard
activist Mark Mayer opposes most of the proposals.
Eller's stated goal: a peaceful end to a billboard dispute that
has dragged on for 15 years in court.
New boards illegal
New billboards have been illegal in most of the city since
1985, when voters passed a referendum banning them except on freeways.
But city efforts to remove existing billboards it contends are
illegal have dragged on for years because of the court conflicts
with industry officials.
The city is trying to prosecute Eller because of billboards that
city officials say were built in improper zones, too close to
other billboards or without legal permits, among other violations.
But city's efforts to force removal of what it says are more than
100 illegal billboards have been stymied in the courts by Eller
and other companies. So far, only a handful of billboards have
come down because of city regulations.
Eller has won continuances or other delays while pressing broader
challenges against the city's authority to get the billboards
torn down.
Last week, the state House of Representatives tentatively approved
an industry-backed bill that would set a two-year statute of limitations
on billboard violations.
The bill would require city governments to cite billboard operators
for violations within two years after inspectors discover them.
Passage likely this week
Final passage should come early this week. The bill would then
move to the Senate, which killed virtually the same bill in the
closing hours of last year's session.
Billboard industry lobbyists wrote this bill. That is typical
for many bills affecting industries or other interest groups.
Lobbyist Wendy Briggs said industry officials want ``finality''
to city enforcement efforts against billboards.
``The only way we get that is requiring the city in two years
to file a violation with the court,'' she said last week.
Briggs represents the Arizona Outdoor Advertising Association,
which includes Eller's and other billboard companies.
``They have sat on 5-year-old violations. Some involve billboards
20 to 30 years old that have sat in essentially the same condition
for 20 to 30 to 40 years. We feel that is not fair.''
Briggs said the association also backs a provision requiring that
the cases be handled by Superior Courts instead of city courts,
because city courts do not follow rules of evidence.
Revenue removal
``When you are talking about removing a billboard, you're talking
about removing revenue,'' Briggs said. ``If you are talking about
removing revenue, you want something where the rules of evidence
are observed.''
City officials say this bill would cripple their enforcement and
block removal of most or all of the 100 allegedly illegal billboards.
By continually forcing delays in court, city officials say, Eller
has seen to it that if the law goes into effect, the city will
not have reached final judgment on many or most of the 100 cases.
They will be covered by the statute of limitations and thrown
out.
``Is Eller going to be able to escape his day in court?'' asked
Frank Kern, the principal assistant city attorney.
The City Council has voted 7-0 to oppose the bill. City officials
say it is the latest in a string of legislative efforts to throttle
city government powers.
City officials have been aware of most of the 100 allegedly illegal
billboards since 1995. That is when activist-consultant Mark Mayer
took inventory of about 550 billboards within city limits.
25 citations, at most
So far, however, they have filed citations against, at most,
25 of them.
City officials contend they lack staff to prosecute these cases
quickly.
Only recently has the city employed a full-time billboard inspector,
said Gene Bromley, chief assistant city prosecutor.
Flipping through manila envelopes stuffed with city enforcement
files, he added that gathering evidence against illegal billboards
is not easy because many are 20 to 40 years old.
``You have to go back and look at different years of aerial photos
to compare them and the quality isn't necessarily all that good,''
Bromley said. ``You need to go back through city records to find
a permit application from 1973. Only by going through history
can you discover that a billboard was built without a permit.''
Eller officials dismiss that argument as a ``cop-out.
Eller's vice president, Donnelly Dybus, however, said the company
would rather settle the dispute with a compromise instead of with
new law.
``Cap and replace''
His idea: a ``cap and replace'' system that would require Eller
to tear down about 20 existing billboards. Then the company could
move one existing billboard to a new location for every additional
one it tears down.
``We're going to try to go with what's fair for everyone,'' Dybus
said. ``When we have a final settlement, we want it to be final.
We don't want to have to keep opening the discussion. We will
keep all of our cards on the table, and we will have no hidden
agendas.''
Eller shopped his proposal in early January at meetings with the
mayor and with all council members except Jerry Anderson.
Accompanying Eller was auto dealer Jim Click, who Dybus said was
there ``as a senior business statesman to lend his advice.'' Click
is a business community leader who has been politically active
for years on a variety of issues.
Walkup's chief of staff, Andrew Greenhill, said Dybus' idea is
one of several the mayor might consider.
Another would allow a billboard company to bring one illegal billboard
up to code in return for tearing down two others. A third would
let a new billboard rise for every two older illegal ones that
come down.
``Good place to start''
Greenhill called these proposals ``a good place to start.''
The mayor wants an agreement to preserve the spirit and letter
of the 1985 law, Greenhill said.
Activist Mayer said two of these three proposals would violate
the law by allowing new or relocated billboards.
The exception is the one allowing fixing up of some old billboards
in return for tearing down others, said Mayer.
``Anything that would change the 1985 ordinance in a substantial
way, we wouldn't want to be at the table for it,'' Mayer said.
Councilwoman Shirley Scott said she would be glad to look at a
reasonable proposal. But she has not changed her mind on billboards
since voting a year ago to vigorously pursue prosecution of illegal
ones.
Vice Mayor Steve Leal said he told Eller he would consider a moratorium
on billboard prosecutions ``if there was a moratorium on both
sides of the street'' - that is, if Eller halted efforts to have
a state law passed.
Otherwise, Leal said, ``I'm not willing to negotiate this in a
newspaper story. It's too important.''
Councilwoman Carol West pointed out that the city has won a couple
of court cases against billboard operators, ``and I just wish
we could have Mr. Eller comply with what the court asks him to
do.''
``I think that's the compromise I'm looking for.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------