HomeMy WebLinkAboutsubmittalStephen D. Hagen 725 NE 73rd Street Miami FL 33138 USA
Phone 305 754 0099 Fax 305 759 5858 Email StevenMIA@aol.com
Commissioners:
A similar copy of this was faxed to Commissioners, Mayor and emailed to Jo& Maxwell July 7, 2004
Regarding the proposed settlement between Miami and Clear Channel Outdoor advertising, if the goal of the Miami
Commission is to eliminate all of the smallest least obnoxious billboards (which happen to be affordable to local
advertisers but not so profitable for Clear Channel) and to assure we will all be able to view 476 existing full size
billboards (plus the billboards along our expressways and billboards belonging to other companies) around our city for
the next twenty-five years then the Commission should pass the proposed settlement. If on the other hand, the
Commission and Mayor are serious about enforcing the terms of the contract Clear Channel entered over twenty years
aqo they will table this proposal Ionq enough to seek additional expert advice from people experienced with such
settlements. Other municipalities around Florida and the country have learned the hard way that bad settlements have
brought additional litigation from other outdoor advertising companies, resulting in even more billboards. What's the
rush, when the proposed agreement runs for a quarter of a century?
In the 48 hours I have had access to the document, I see the following items which need attention:
The whole concept of "amending permits " to rebuild and relocate is a can of worms which the city will not be any better
at monitoring and enforcing than they have in the past and to enter into such agreements will leave the city open to
challenges by other outdoor advertising companies, which other municipalities have found can bring more billboards.
The provision that requires Miami to limit the increase in permit fees to the Consumer Price Index needs to be applied
as well to any dollar amounts payable to Miami over a twenty-five year term. Why should the city be limited to receive
just $300,000 a year over a twenty-five year period when inflation will eat away a substantial portion? I submit the city
will need to allocate $50,000 or more a year to properly monitor this complicated agreement!
Why would you want to limit free billboard services to $50,000 a year (or any dollar figure) when it would be better to
specify a certain number of certain size billboards in certain prime locations for certain prime time months? And no
mention is made as to who is to bear the cost of producing such material to be displayed.
Currently, if a billboard blows down in a hurricane, it cannot be replaced so why would the city actually require Clear
Channel Outdoor to rebuild them on a monopole and make them stronger?
No mention is made as to how the area surrounding billboards is to be maintained.
No mention is made as to how the city will deal with billboards that grow larger overnight. It has happened already all
over the city and I can see the B size billboards growing with extensions. No mention is made as to artistic attachments
that project beyond the edge of a billboard increasing its size.
At the June 25 Commission meeting Carol Licko stated that 50% of the billboards would come down over a five-year
period and I assume that is the logic the Commission is using to support the settlement. If you examine the exhibits,
you will discover that 50% removal figure may be true if you only count the number of billboards and ignore the various
SIZES of billboards. The truth is, if you factor in the three sizes of billboards, LESS THAN EIGHTEEN PERCENT
OF ADVERTISING SPACE WILL BE ELIMINATED and very few large billboards will be removed. Roughly 50% of the
small "A" billboards are attached to the sides of small businesses and are not as obnoxious as other larger billboards,
which protrude in the air. Can't some larger billboards in more prominent locations come down? I see only a few
specific large billboards have been addressed in terms of removal such as at the Performing Arts Center and at the
Kubik project on Biscayne. Why not ask neighbourhood groups to name the one large billboard in their neighborhood
they would like to see removed? How about removing the two at 79th street at the FEC railroad tracks, the gateway to
the Upper Eastside?
Billboards are one of the major elements that people use to determine their likes or dislikes for a city. I trust you will do
all you can to make certain you have a good agreement for the residents of Miami and our visitors. Seek expert
assistance from outside Miami and outside Florida on this matter. SUB j ITTED NTO TH E
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
cv—<(,s;- 4 TEM 5!' ,. ON 7gc�