The Utah Legislature should soundly defeat an effort by some members that would allow billboard companies to upgrade to electronic signs without authorization from local communities.
Senate Bill 136, sponsored by Sen. Wayne Niederhauser, R-Sandy, also would end traditional community standards for billboards. For example, to terminate a billboard placed in a municipality, eminent domain would be the only recourse. There is a similar bill in the House.
Billboard firms may be frustrated at cities that terminate their billboard rights, but this kind of regulation is not the Legislature's business to "fix." Cities are the correct entity to regulate billboards. Let sign companies negotiate with cities.
If local officials don't want electronic billboards or billboards encroaching too far into the community, they should be able to say no without having to invoke eminent domain.
For legislators who claim to be opposed to big government intruding into the rights of communities, this is yet another contradiction. Why would legislators want to use the power of the state to dictate to cities and other municipalities as to how they can regulate billboards?
Why indeed? A look at campaign donations to state legislators might help answer that question. Reagan Outdoor Advertising, Utah's largest billboard company, has contributed $82,913 to candidates in 2011. Two thousand dollars went to Sen. Niederhauser. Several local pols have received checks from Reagan as well.
We've no doubt that pols will loudly cry foul at even the slightest hint that fat donations from deep-pocket corporations influence their choices of legislation to favor. Nevertheless, it stinks that scores of thousands of dollars line pols' pockets prior to the unveiling of an intrusive bill designed to neuter the right of local communities to regulate billboards. We invite our readers to make the call as to whether the money had an influence.
Simply stated, SB136 is an example of bigger government going after smaller government. We agree with Farmington City Manager Dave Milheim, who described the bill as "lobbying gone amok" and "not good public policy."
Comments