There is also one located accross the street from City Hall on 9th and Market.

There’s another at the end of Center going into downtown.

The one at Center & Tacoma Ave South is of the same theme but I think has a different slogan.

I don’t think it has anything to do at all with the city issue. I don’t see why Clear Channel would want to raise the profile of this so high when it’s easy to see they’ll just be litigating this quietly for as long as possible.

My hope is that the City sticks to their guns.

RR is correct.

Unfortunately there is a Supreme Court decision from the 19th century that is used to uphold the language in the 14th amendment to extend to corporation.

Interestingly enough, the decision referred to says the opposite.

The case, Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad, according to Wiki, had a note from the court reporter that contained: “the court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.”

This was not part of the decision, but part of the oral arguments as stated by the judge while the oral arguments were being heard.

Our Constitution was not written to cover the “unalienable rights” of non-entities. A part of the revolution was the special treatment and tax breaks given to the East India Tea Company.

So, now, a company that has a monopoly on outdoor advertising in OUR city is going to tie up OUR tax dollars and OUR courts. Their big enterprise hampers our free enterprise.

Clear Channel is not us, it is not Tacoma, and it should rightfully take down their signs.

Anybody want to dress up like movie-prop Indians and cut down billboards over the weekend?

Also if you wanna see what clear channel is upto, go to stadium video and rent the movie “THEY LIVE”

Here is a comprehensive web site I found right off of billboards:

Scenic America: Change is inevitable. Ugliness is not

A google search with the terms “blight and billboard” bring up hundreds of web sites around the country of cities and citizen groups fighting billboard blight over many years. Tacoma is entering a conflict that has been fought many times before. The city needs to stand up for itself or it is going to get a rather poor and blighted result.

By the way, there is no constitution right to erect a billboard. Zero. (the compensation issue for existing billboards is another issue).

If there was, the arguments would be being made to the court which are the entities which enforce constitutions.

The billboards are going up around town to try to influence our policy makers to not enforce the 10 year old billboard ordinance.

Perhaps this is a compliment to our city council (of 10 years ago)and the city attorney then in that the billboard owners apparently perceive that Tacoma’s law concerning billboards is valid.

James Kunstler question of what makes a city a city worth caring about comes immediately to mind. The nuances we discuss of urban design mean little if the area is covered with billboards. Right now, we not only have billboards in the central downtown area but in the neighborhood business districts as well.

One positive note, we don’t have to stare at those atrocious “get your glass down here” ad’s that the museum of glass is putting on or the creepy shriner’s helping kids for a while.

When I saw 4 Constitution Matters signs between So. side Safeway and the freeway I thought it was interesting that someone wanted to get some unclear message across. When I saw 7 or eight more between Center and 38th Street it began to smack of some kind of mind control. I was beginning to think big brother was watching me or something. Then I turned onto Center from Union and saw two in front of me and two in my rearview mirror. Now I am just freaked out. I think I will go curl up in the fetal position and wait until it all passes.

I think it has to do with something Bush said.

Here’s something else that’s too bad about the marketing onslaught by Clear Channel.

Since it is very unlikely that billboards are booked fully with paying advertisers, the owners give space away to non-profits and charities when they can’t fill space on their own.

I am sure they haven’t given up a dime of income for the Constitutions Matter campaign, but rather have replaced all the billboards about strokes, AIDS, etc, until this run of ads is done.

No public service announcements for awhile. But plenty of car ads.

Once every square inch of billboard has been assymilated, they’ll start occupying the giant blank spaces inside our heads!

While Clear Channel fights, I’ve already noticed one less billboard at the corner of Center & Union. No idea whose it was, but it’s gone.

Billboard Update via the TNT

Councilmember Tom Stenger Steps up to the plate for Tacoma:

“They’re just used to bullying people and they want to bully Tacoma, too,” Stenger said. “They’ve known about this for 10 years. I think they only care about making money – they don’t care about the constitution.” Kevin Fry, president of Scenic America, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit opposing visual pollution, said he’d never heard of Clear Channel putting up “Constitutions Matter” signs to oppose a billboard ban, but that the move is consistent with the company’s style.

“These billboards are a kind of disinformation campaign to confuse people about the legal rights of the billboard industry,” Fry said. “They always try to exaggerate their position.”

William Brinton, a Jacksonville, Fla., attorney who serves on the board of Scenic America, said Clear Channel is making the same arguments that have been struck down before in higher courts.

Wouldn’t it be glorious to see somebody punk those signs by adding a little wheatpasted “Impeach Bush” sign underneath Constitutions Matter? Not enough people are aware of the huge political and monetary ties between Clear Channel and the Bush family and administration. Clear Channel single-handedly orchestrated the furor over the Dixie Chicks announcing to France that they weren’t fans of the president. Anyone feeling spunky?

Ok. Here’s the latest:

Clear Channel has retained a Seattle based law firm who has filed a legal action against the city of 47 pages with attachments.

Clear Channel is asking for an injunction against Tacoma to keep the city from enforcing the billboard ordinance.

A hearing has been scheduled in Pierce County Superior Court on August 10, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. in Room 2-A.

No doubt, there will be pressure on the Tacoma City Council to “negotiate” with them in the interim before the hearing. Let’s hope the city stands behind the 10 year billboard ordinance.

All those stupid billboards have done is make me realize how numerous they are and how ugly they are! Stand strong city council! Clear channel: TAKE THEM DOWN! I WANT MY CITY BACK!!

Urban Explorer,

If you want them gone (signs and CC), contact the city council. Tell them that you don’t want compromise, and you’ll support them with whatever it takes to keep the intent of the ban in place in a timely fashion.

We, as a city, should not compromise, bow or move one inch on this. 10 years is enough time, CC and their advertisers knew the clock was ticking. And, if the advertisers did not, it was CC’s failure to notify them.

After a drive down Center Street today, it’s very tempting, RtMarcus.

Back in the early 80s San Fransisco, this would have inspired some serious urban art (they had a great billboard art-alturnative thing going on skewing the pro-offered message just enough).
We need a photo projected same sized font (got to make it look real, you know) that says “Impeach” . (or, “A message bought to you from the Attorney General of the United Sates. No lie”)
Imagine that all over town!

I wonder how much Clear Channel charges clients for “FREE” speech?

“......man, this thread is seriously off the deep end…...”

no kidding.

Here’s a good clip on urban blight created from billboards:

A Visual Essay by Scenic America on Urban Sign Pollution.

The Tacoma ordinance gave billboard owners an Aug. 1, 2007 deadline to remove billboards. The council granted billboard owners a 10-year amortization period to recoup their investments before the ban would be imposed. In the lawsuit filed Thursday, however, Clear Channel Outdoor said the amortization period doesn’t count as just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. But Clear Channel Outdoor, which operates all (yes ALL) the city’s 193 (this really is a monopoly) effected billboards, says that the sweeping ban violates free speech rights and doesn’t give the company just compensation for the signs’ removal. (10 years wasn’t enough?) and OK because the message is political, and NOT ADVERTISING! CC is clever, devious, and well backed! Stand up Tacoma – don’t let CC be the big bully.

OK folks, do we care about Tacoma or not? Is it worth caring about? The historical buildings downtown help define who we are—they are about wonderful architecture and landscape design. Wonderful buildings in our urban areas should take our breath away. Ignoring the potential beauty of our city degrades the character of our community. Is our city worth caring about? The Northwest is GORGEOUS! Why do we tolerate the blight in areas like Nally Valley and the rest of South Tacoma?

Tacoma City Council: are you out there anywhere—do you represent the people of Tacoma, or just corporate interests?

Folks: let your wishes be known!

Interesting points on all sides. How about this compromise: One board, equal to the combined square footage of those coming down in Tacoma, located on a patch of tribal land next to a Tacoma stretch of I-5.

I like to think of it as a message supporting the preliminary efforts of Congressman Inslee et al. to impeach Attorney General Gonzales.

Clear Channel will cry that the moving of their billboards is too much financial burden, yet they just spent about 524432552 dollars on this vague slogan blast. Half the city is convinced this is some anti-war theme… What a cluster#%%&!

Constitutions do matter.

I don’t think Clear Channel gets it though. This message is much bigger than their little weazly scandal to make more money. And as said earlier, billboards are not an inalienable right. They’re ugly. They’re trash.

When’s the last time we talked about a billboard?

When I first saw the signs, I thought some Presidential Candidate got clever. But, sadly it’s just Clear Channel, another swindler of the people trying to take advantage of the gray space between money and propaganda.

Hopefully the message will continue to permeate our minds and we’ll all be inspired to take part in the change.

CONSTITUTIONS MATTER!

When I drive down Tacoma Ave from 6th to 25th, turn down 25th and head up Center I get it. CC wants me to see that they have a whole lotta billboards! Too many of them. When I drive I keep my eyes on the road, and try to ignore blightboards as much as possible. CC has made that impossible since they are all the same, I am astonished at the number of them all in concentrations of less affluent areas. I support Tacoma City C. and not Clear C. Outdoor. Sing it “BYE BYE BILLBOARDS”

Clear Channel if you are fighting for the constitution then mention how Christmas trees were removed in the airport, How we voted against fingerprinting in banks yet our government found a roundabout way to enforce fingerprints. How our right to run a business is being dictated with no smoking rules and removal of trans fat in products how we are told to wear seatbelts how the government uses our information when we cross the narrows bridge, how we are are being monitored when we use our club cards. We the people fail to stand up to our own rights that are being taken from us. You want to argue consitution than be sure to argue ALL of the rights that have been removed. I say NO for Hillary…...

Do billboards matter this much to you guys? Pick your battles. I live near Jason Lee and can see 5 or 6 bilboards at a time when I leave my house. You know something? I just realized that a couple days ago when they all started saying CONSTITUTIONS MATTER. You don’t own the billboard space so what say did you earn? Relax a little, Tacoma. It’s just a sign.

Grant, you have never noticed the huge billboard behind It’s Greek To Me that blocks the nice territorial view and church when heading west on 6th Ave? Now that is one that I have really noticed for a while. It will be nice to see that one gone.

How about the one on top of the building on 9th and Pacfic Ave.? They can’t shoot a picture or movie of the Pantages Theater’s flashy sign without having a nice big billboard in it.

Well, I’m obviously late to this one, but the Clear Channel people I’m sure know what they are doing with the transition. While the court of public opinion may rise up against them and they may lose to the City Council, the corporation knows this one is going to court before the justices.

The “Constitutions Matter” is for the supremes, not the citizens. By changing the signs to political speach rather than commercial speach, they are hoping to realize additional protections under the first amendment. Even if they are stuck arguing that it is used for political speach only a part of the time, they are hoping for some additional protection.

Erik B. posted some good links to other regions facing this issue. Does anyone know if the WA State Supreme Court has heard a recent billboard case?

(I know Federal Way was dealing with the issue under a 1990 law that was appealed 3 or 4 years ago. I think that one was thrown out because they did not make a timely appeal under LUPA. It seems like a similar rational could be used here.)

Now back to the monkeywrenching.

Too bad.

I thought that these bill-boards were some sort of subtle message from the “new” democrats…

Congrads….......EXIT133 IS NOW A NATIONAL POLITICAL WASTE ZONE...!@!!!!!............another useless democratic blog…....so much for the Tacoma blog…...have fun!!!....get off…do what ever you all love to do….blame bush for ever failure that you’ve experienced because of cause it is all his fault….....

rich,
wow. One post discussion thread out of countless others.

That’s impressive.

Billboards are matter.

Most corporations try to benefit their “brand” through giving money:

Philip Morris’s Ad on Macaroni and Peace —- Kosovo Tale Narrows Gap Between Philanthropy, Publicity

Wall Street Journal; Jul 24, 2001; By Shelly Branch;

The TV screen shows a 10-acre refugee camp, its makeshift tents trembling in the snow. Hundreds of Kosovar refugees, shielding their faces from the harsh conditions, march toward safety and shelter. In the distance, a military helicopter pierces the gray sky. The words “based on a true story” appear on screen. As the aircraft lands, cargo doors fly open to expose the contents of its belly: huge cardboard boxes marked “Kraft.”

“Hi, I’m Molly from Philip Morris,” shouts a passenger above the din of the rotors. Actually, “Molly” is an actor who was flown from Atlanta to an elaborate set just south of Prague to star in one of the most lavish re-creations ever attempted for a TV commercial.

The 60-second ad, which began running in April, is part of the New York cigarette maker’s ongoing corporate-image campaign, intended to remind the public about its non-tobacco brands, such as Kraft cheese, as well as its commitment to charitable giving. “It’s important for Philip Morris to get across the message that we’re more than a tobacco company, and that we have dedicated employees,” says Karen Brosius, director of corporate affairs.

regarding the original germ of the comment thread:

corporations are NOT first class citizens and are NOT protected under the constitution. this part of the debate is over. how dare clear channel attempt such an appeal on our community.

the only discussion remaining regards private land-owners and land use rights. where should the line be drawn between protecting land use rights and protecting the common good?

thoughts?

I say advertising is unacceptable when it seeks to profit by exploiting vulnerable people who don’t have resources to defend themselves or push back.
One such resource: critical thinking skills.

Secondly, corportions are not moral agents. They’re power systems. They’re about domination and humiliation. They want obedience. If they can’t use physical coercion, then they use propaganda.

The general public need not acquiese to such power systems. The key is to form groups or coalitions that pool their resources and develop an informed, organized opposition.

seems like a bunch of new posters to this blog would be a good thing… no???

isn’t it about time people engaged in politics? or should we just keep buying and spending, and putting it on the visa while the threat raises to orange, no red!

i feel comfort in knowing people in my home are talking about this “Constitution.”

now, to consider Clear Channel’s real hold on us when we’re not reading their Tacoma love note, where else do we hear/read/injest Clear Channel?

and the beat goes on!
story is picked up by the billboard liberation front:

http://www.billboardliberation.com/

Liberate Tacoma!

The following letter is posted online at http://www.tahomaorganizer.org/an-open-letter-to-the-tacoma-city-council/. Thanks!

Dear Tacoma City Council,
It is with interest that I noticed Clear Channel’s “road spam” on all our billboards. I have to tell you – I really didn’t realize how many there were and how ugly they are until Clear Channel brought my attention to them by talking down to me and trying to mislead me about the “rights” corporations have to blight our city’s landscape.
Originally I had hoped that a private party had bought them all up to bring (hopefully) the whole nation’s attention to our national constitution, and was disappointed to find out that it was simply a massive corporation hoping to coerce and bully a city’s population with a specious and wrong-headed concept of “corporate constitutional rights”. I’ve always heard that corporations are given rights by the communities in which they serve – rights which, by the way, can and should be taken away when they act irresponsibly or illegally.
The First Amendment was not designed to apply to corporations. Corporations do not, by law, have the same rights as citizens, in fact, corporations do not have any rights not explicitly granted to them by the citizens, and Clear Channel’s suggestion to the contrary is disingenuous and irresponsible. In addition, the legal arguments Clear Channel is using have been struck down multiple times in the past – they carry no weight. The dispute with the city is an important one, potentially precedent-setting, and could have ramifications for the rest of the country.
For a corporation, life is all about selling things. For us, life is about much more than buying things. The state of Maine figured that out and made it the law. For thirty years, there have been no billboards at all in the state of Maine. The right of a population to determine whether public property can be used for commercial interests is not in question.
If Clear Channel refuses to remove the billboards, the city should take them down, or as it was put more colorfully by a poster at exit133.com,“Every single illegal billboard in Tacoma MUST be toppled, systematically dismantled and the parts destroyed utterly by fire”. I couldn’t agree more.
I, for one, as a citizen of Tacoma, encourage the city council to stand firmly behind the ordinance passed 10 (!) years ago, and force Clear Channel to comply. Tacoma is well within its rights to insist that corporations do not throw their trash all over Tacoma, just as we as individuals are within our rights to insist that we not get phone calls and junk mail; that we not get advertised and spammed and billboarded and commercialed to death, constantly, from all sides, at all times. If Clear Channel hired someone with a microphone to stand in each location where a billboard is now, and shout their message over a loudspeaker 24 hours a day, those people would be jailed before their first day’s shift was over.
Stand Firm! Personally, I will be doing everything I can to help create a public backlash against Clear Channel for being such a rotten neighbor.
Andrew Bacon . Editor
Tahoma Organizer
editor@tahomaorganizer.org

SCENERY MATTERS.

CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP MATTERS.

CITY LAW MATTERS.

And having ten years to fix a problem but doing nothing about it but filing “I don’t wanna follow the rules” lawsuits… matters.

Hope you brought your vertibrae, City Council, now’s the time to use it.

I’m not from here, I just happened to be stationed here at Ft. Lewis. They are obnoccious and really do need to be taken down. I may no longer be in the service, but I’m still happy to fight for constitutional rights; Tacoma has the right to be allowed to be the beautiful city it is.

....seriously, I think it IS possible to hate Bush and to love Tacoma, even at the same time! go figure…

Today, the Tacoma city council candidates take positions on the billboard ordinance via the TNT

Marty Campbell

He would “love to live in a billboard-free city,” but he also “loves our Constitution.” He would support some kind of compromise with Clear Channel Outdoor rather than an all-out fight on the city’s restrictive ordinance.

David Curry

He has no preconceived notion. He says it might be wise to reconsider the city’s ordinance.

Johnathan Phillips

He would prefer some kind of compromise, but said Clear Channel had 10 years to try to change the city’s ordinance. “If it’s all or nothing, it’s going to be nothing,” he says.

Marilyn Strickland

She needs more information, such as “What was the motivation behind the 1997 ordinance?” She wonders how much people’s view of billboards is influenced by their appearance. If they were beautiful pieces of art, would people support them?

Today, the Tacoma city council candidates for District 3 take positions on the billboard ordinance via the TNT

JACK PLEASANT

Says the city should negotiate with Clear Channel Outdoor rather than wage a legal battle to enforce a restrictive billboard ordinance adopted by the City Council 10 years ago. “Let’s start over,” he said. “There’s no need to pay millions in legal fees.”

DONALD POWELL

Although he says most people probably want Tacoma’s billboards removed, Powell says city government shouldn’t just ban them because they don’t like them. “It’s a free society, and the ability to communicate through advertising is an essential part of that.”

LAUREN WALKER

Says billboards haven’t enhanced her life or the life of her neighborhood. She says she doesn’t respect Clear Channel Outdoor’s “bullying” approach to an ordinance approved by the City Council 10 years ago. “I’m open to compromise,” Walker said. “I think they’re done.”

RONNIE ALLEN WARREN

Says the city should negotiate a compromise with Clear Channel Outdoor that would allow some billboards to remain. “Those signs are there and they are part of the community,” he said. But he also says it’s important to recognize the city’s rules.

Lauren Walker appears to be the candidate most opposed to the Billboards