Billboards and the Urban Landscape

Life Coach Mike

Life Coach Mike

Active Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2019
Messages
310
Reaction score
470
I'm curious....how many in this forum actually read billboards? And if you actually try to read them from a moving car, how often do you find their design, wording, and font sizes impossible to tell you what is being advertised? Looking at the sky-high billboards on poles along 93 and the Gilmore bridge, marring the view of the cityscape and architecture, has always been a total distraction for me. Isn't it time to ban this form of advertising altogether, as a blight, (and perhaps reserve a few of them for PSA's)?
 
I think Herb Chambers’ are easy to read and reasonably clever at about 5 to 7 words. And they don’t strain credulity

Also beverage and “buy tickets for entertainers’ show” ads work

But, yeah, many are too text-heavy Or elaborate to be read/comprehended

(mostly referring to I-93 on the Medford/Somerville stretch)
 
Life Coach Mike said:
Isn't it time to ban this form of advertising altogether, as a blight, (and perhaps reserve a few of them for PSA's)?
Click to expand...

The Commonwealth, in its relentless quest for revenues, is [in my mind] a predatory state--witness how it ceaselessly exhorts its citizens to gamble, gamble, gamble via the Lottery, despite overwhelming evidence that gambling can lead to ruinously pathological, addictive-compulsive behavior. In light of this reality, should we really expect it to be amenable to calls to ban a revenue-generating phenomenon that is far far less destructive to the citizenry than gambling? (If just as distasteful, in the eyes of many?) I'm really not trying to be provocative--I just find it astonishing that, in light of what happened with cigarettes, that aggressively state-sponsored gambling is not seen as an outrage.

[and mind you, I draw a hard line between casinos and the Lottery, as the casinos are not government entities endlessly goading people the government is supposed to be looking for the welfare of, to gamble]

That said, I do agree that the Theater Disrict electronic marquees are a whole other kettle of fish, with their useful PSAs. I'd be happy to see a good deal more of them!
 
DBM said:
The Commonwealth, in its relentless quest for revenues, is [in my mind] a predatory state--witness how it ceaselessly exhorts its citizens to gamble, gamble, gamble via the Lottery, despite overwhelming evidence that gambling can lead to ruinously pathological, addictive-compulsive behavior. In light of this reality, should we really expect it to be amenable to calls to ban a revenue-generating phenomenon that is far far less destructive to the citizenry than gambling? (If just as distasteful, in the eyes of many?) I'm really not trying to be provocative--I just find it astonishing that, in light of what happened with cigarettes, that aggressively state-sponsored gambling is not seen as an outrage.

[and mind you, I draw a hard line between casinos and the Lottery, as the casinos are not government entities endlessly goading people the government is supposed to be looking for the welfare of, to gamble]

That said, I do agree that the Theater Disrict electronic marquees are a whole other kettle of fish, with their useful PSAs. I'd be happy to see a good deal more of them!
Click to expand...

How does the state make money off of billboards?
 
Last edited:
City of Medford some how profited by licensing fewer, bigger, monopolized billboards (a decade ago?). Not sure how the deal was structured exactly
 
There have been a large amount of billboards advertising pot dispensaries on 495 and along 84 in CT.
Also I think I read there are billboards along 93N that are in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville et al and are regulated locally and those cities get revenue from them. Some are fairly recent
 
BronsonShore said:
How does the state make money off of billboards?
Click to expand...

So you don't think the state exacts a very hefty one-time/upfront permitting/licensing fee, along with some sort of yearly rent-style taxes, on billboards that fall within MassDOT's purview, being along highway air rights and/or erected on public land? I imagine it does--especially because such exactions could be [cynically] justified under the guise of, "look, you guys are a really hated industry; people really despise you. so you're going to have to pay a lot in...

[wait for it]

mitigation fees"
 
Scott said:
There have been a large amount of billboards advertising pot dispensaries on 495 and along 84 in CT.
Also I think I read there are billboards along 93N that are in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville et al and are regulated locally and those cities get revenue from them. Some are fairly recent
Click to expand...
Literally every other billboard through the Springfield stretch on the Pike has been for a dispensary. The "Springfield Is Better With Weed" one always got a chuckle from me.

I am glad that we lack the ambulance chaser billboards that seem ubiquitous in Providence. I have less of an issue with the billboards themselves than with what they're advertising - considering I'm a racing fan and willingly wear Menards branding every weekend (go Pagenaud!) it would be hypocritical of me to have my hackles raised about such things.
 
I drove through Springfield a few weekends ago and was perplexed that every single billboard was for a dispensary. I'll agree it depends on what the billboards are advertising - I think the dispensary ones really 'cheapen' the look of MA.

Reminds me of a twitter thread 'analysis' on the types of ads you see on various subway lines: MBTA has healthcare/biotech, clinical trial advertisements, and education all the time, and WMATA has defense agency advertisements (going so far as blatantly advertising the 'products' they make, including the technical names of some missiles). Those are the two that stuck out to me, at least.
 
DBM said:
So you don't think the state exacts a very hefty one-time/upfront permitting/licensing fee, along with some sort of yearly rent-style taxes, on billboards that fall within MassDOT's purview, being along highway air rights and/or erected on public land? I imagine it does--especially because such exactions could be [cynically] justified under the guise of, "look, you guys are a really hated industry; people really despise you. so you're going to have to pay a lot in...

[wait for it]

mitigation fees"
Click to expand...

Maybe it does? I don’t know, which is why I asked. Do you know that the state extracts "hefty" revenues or is this just conjecture? Regardless, as a citizen I certainly would want the state to collect revenue from a business that only exists because of public infrastructure, takes advantage of that infrastructure, and in doing so, detracts from the enjoyment of public spaces. So if your point is that the mere extraction of revenue by the state is evil, I strongly disagree.

If your point instead is that the state will never ban billboards because it wouldn't want to forgo the revenue, well "the state" isn't some uncontrollable, self-perpetuating entity alienated from the people. If enough people want to forgo the revenue and ban billboards, then it becomes a political issue just like any other, and can be worked out through the political process. My sense is simply that most people don't care one way or the other.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the state should ban billboards however I do think the new electronic ones could potentially distract drivers and that should be studied and potentially regulated.

Now, I am not against pot legalization but I don't think they should be able to advertise on billboards just like tobacco or alcohol signs are banned. Pot being legal doesn't make it benign. I am not being a prude I just think we should be consistent. Maybe any form of gambling should be excluded too
 
BronsonShore said:
Maybe it does? I don’t know, which is why I asked. Do you know that the state extracts "hefty" revenues or is this just conjecture? Regardless, as a citizen I certainly would want the state to collect revenue from a business that only exists because of public infrastructure, takes advantage of that infrastructure, and in doing so, detracts from the enjoyment of public spaces. So if your point is that the mere extraction of revenue by the state is evil, I strongly disagree.

If your point instead is that the state will never ban billboards because it wouldn't want to forgo the revenue, well "the state" isn't some uncontrollable, self-perpetuating entity alienated from the people. If enough people want to forgo the revenue and ban billboards, then it becomes a political issue just like any other, and can be worked out through the political process. My sense is simply that most people don't care one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Purely conjecture. I certainly hope the state extracts hefty revenues in this case! But I also imagine the state is able to exploit rhetoric along the lines of "oh, we're going to tax you heftily--you're lucky to be allowed to operate, period, given how much the public hates you!" to perhaps tax highway billboards beyond what "fair-market value" would dictate as being reasonable.

The state isn't uncontrollable--but I think, once the state captures a continous revenue stream--and then creates a vested interest/constituency group patronized by those revenues, such as (while we're in the highway vicinity) toll collectors--it can be very difficult to "wean it from that addiction," unless the political climate changes dramatically, as you allude to.

I 100% agree with your final sentence, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top