NLR act lengthens electronic sign ban

Council planning discussion tonight

— Bright and constantly changing electronic signs meant to grab a passer-by's attention in North Little Rock also distract drivers and are a nuisance to others, according to a committee of city aldermen.

Legislation to be introduced at the North Little Rock City Council meeting at 7 p.m. tonight calls for a nearly 2-year moratorium for issuing permits for any new "electronic changeable copy" sign in the city. A public hearing is also set for tonight's meeting.

Critics said they see a temporary ban as "anti-business."

The ban would extend a moratorium in effect since April that is to expire Sept. 30. The 24-month moratorium, if approved, would be retroactive to April and end by April 27, 2011.

The proposed ordinance comes from a committee of city aldermen and states that the electronic signs "may present a safety hazard" to drivers, could cause "visual blight" and "interfere with the use and enjoyment of homes."

A companion ordinance would immediately establish a method of measuring and regulating the brightness of the electronic signs, if passed.

Five aldermen at the committee's last meeting Aug. 6 - Murry Witcher, Debi Ross, Beth White, Maurice Taylor and Cary Gaines - are all co-sponsors of the proposed moratorium. Approval requires five votes.

"There were a number of issues that are not clear-cut regarding that type of sign and where it is going in the future," said Witcher, the committee's chairman. "There is also litigation in different parts of the country regarding what limitations you can put on those signs and what you can control and not control."

Gaines, however, said Friday that despite agreeing to put the proposal before the full council, he plans to vote against the moratorium.

The moratorium, Witcher said, could end earlier and is only to give city officials more time to find suitable ways to stem an expected proliferation of the signs.

"It just seemed prudent to wait a reasonable amount of time, and not necessarily the whole two years, until we get some clear direction by law, or until we figure it out ourselves," he said.

Aesthetics within the city, traffic safety and bright, flashing signs intruding upon others are all part of the equation, Witcher said. A moratorium, he added, seemed like a compromise to sort out the concerns heard by city aldermen.

"Probably, if we'd been pushed into a corner, I would suspect a number of folks would want to ban signs entirely," Witcher said. "I don't know if that's fair or not."

Several business owners who want the latest electronic signs to advertise their products plan to attend the council meeting to oppose the proposal, said Jason Offutt, president of Ace Signs of Arkansas in Benton. His company installs and maintains signs throughout central Arkansas.

"The councilmen don't like the look," said Offutt, who added he's talked with some aldermen about the moratorium, including Witcher. "The main words I've heard is they don't want Las Vegas in North Little Rock."

A moratorium, Offutt added, "is mainly bad for businesses because it restricts their advertising. ... There's no doubt it would hurt competition between North Little Rock and its surrounding cities."

Offutt and others have discussed their opposition with Terry Hartwick, president of the North Little Rock Chamber of Commerce that serves as an advocate for businesses in the city.

With the ability to control all aspects of electronic signs, Hartwick said, he doesn't see a needfor any type of ban.

"It's anti-business," Hartwick said of the proposal. "It's just taking out another person doing business in the city, taking sales tax revenue out of our city.

"I agree that the signs should be controlled. They can control the timing of how often they're changing their message. The brightness can be controlled. Everything about them can be controlled."

Some small restaurants have people in costumes waving signs along city streets trying to attract drivers, but that seems to be OK with the council, Hartwick said.

"Our city allows somebody todress up and stand on a corner with a placard around their neck and dance around, but it won't allow a nice electronic sign because they're saying that's a hazard because it takes people's eyes off the road," he said. "That just doesn't make sense."

Big, bright electronic signs are prominent in the city now, most notably one with constantlychanging images outside the First Pentecostal Church alongside Interstate 40 between the I-30 and U.S. 67/167 interchanges. About 117,000 vehicles pass by that sign daily, according to 2008 traffic counts by the state Highway and Transportation Department.

"There are a couple of wrecks there every week," Witcher said. "Is it because of traffic or because of the sign? Who knows? A lot of things distract folks."

More recent signs at new retail centers on Maumelle Boulevard, when first installed, were so bright and so quick-changing that city officials said they heard complaints from west Little Rock residents across the Arkansas River.

"With the signs on Maumelle Boulevard, when folks from the other side of the river said those were lighting up their homes in Little Rock, that got all of our attention," Witcher said.

Local governments, too, use the same type of electronic signs. Pulaski County's Verizon Arena in North Little Rock utilizes an electronic sign for advertising events there, as does Dickey-Stephens Park in North Little Rock's downtown, a stadium owned by the city. Neither would be affected by the moratorium.

"It seems as though the city always gets what it wants, but local businesses are more restricted," Offutt said. "We have felt like we've been totally ignored. They [city officials] seem to have no concern of our thoughts on that."

Arkansas, Pages 7, 9 on 08/24/2009

Upcoming Events