A Promising Sign Regarding Sign Desecration

Results of a new poll of North Carolina voters shows that when it comes to provisions of a new billboard bill, legislators who have felt insulated may finally be risking support at the ballot box.

As smoothly and many feel deceptively crafted as SB 320 and HB 304 were  by the billboard lobby, North Carolinians are overwhelmingly opposed to its provisions.

But bi-partisan voter opposition to bills that favor out-of-state billboard companies isn’t new.  More telling this time is that the opposition is strong regardless of gender and geography.

Historically, men have been less protective of scenic preservation but this time they poll even more opposed to these bills than women.

Opposition to provisions such as permitting digital even where they are now prohibited runs 2 to 1 in the northeast and southeast and 3 to 1 along the mountains and metro areas where cities have already permitted them.

Of course, opposition is also high across the age groups billboarders and their remaining advertisers are trying hardest to reach.  The poll shows 5-to-1 opposed for those between age 30 and 45, increasing to 8-to-1 opposed among those age 46-65.

Of particular note to the few advertisers still using billboards is the high turn-off to turn-on ratio they have among consumers they are hoping to reach.

But most revealing is how voters plan to hold supporters accountable.

For a decade now, studies have found that elected officials are rarely held accountable at the ballot box, in part, because “the voices of American citizens are raised and heard unequally,” opening the door for special interests.

This is why a tax loophole, one of the six largest, permits billboard companies to escape paying their share of taxes by claiming their profits are only “rents.” 

Ironically, “rent-seeking” is also the word economists use to describe when companies such as these work the political system to gain favorable treatment rather than working to create economic value in the marketplace.

Similarly, this new legislation would also create another big loophole, permitting thousands of illegal billboards to become legal overnight, further desecrating the North Carolina brand.

To further assault North Carolina taxpayers, if passed and signed by the Governor, this new legislation will also guarantee billboard companies millions of dollars for each one that is removed when it comes time to widen the roadway.

This, even though the courts have ruled the billboards parasitic property because they would have no value in the first place were it not for the taxpayer funded roadways.

However, according to the poll, Tar Heel voters recognize that this is essentially a tax increase on them to benefit out-of-state billboard companies, not exactly the kind of tax-shifting voters like.

This provision in the proposed North Carolina legislation made voters overall less likely to support a legislator who votes for the bill by almost 5-to-1, including 4-to-1 among Republican voters.

If voters remember and follow through come election time, this would represent a sea-change where elected officials are held more accountable for actions they felt were safe in the past because they harmed only those who were not their constituents.

It is a mistaken calculus often used by organizations such as chambers of commerce and more passively, some tourism organizations, which align with the 1/5th of Carolinians who ally with the billboarders, including some doing so in direct opposition to the wishes of businesses and residents in their communities.

This latest poll may reveal not just overwhelming opposition but emergence of a resentment that could drive North Carolina voters to ban billboards altogether one day as voters have in some other states.

Investment In Sense of Place

We may be a bit smug in Durham, North Carolina where many take retention of sense of place as a given.  But we can learn from the observations of a New York entertainment journalist transplanted to Raleigh, a city to the south and east that has taken a path not so fortunate:

“Once this kind of development gets started, it is hard to stop it.  And all of a sudden you wake up and wonder what happened to your city.  How did it start to look like every place else?”

Several decisions in Durham have nudged it in the direction of a “Disney-fied theme park with no character” by chipping away at those natural and “built” elements that have made it distinct.

National surveys show that by 9 to 1, Americans believe their community could benefit from a community plan while only 17% believe their community should be left alone.

When it comes to neighborhoods, more think they need protection than revitalization.

Only a fourth believe elected leaders are best able to understand changes that will make a community better compared to fully one third who view community planners that way, perhaps saying more about perceptions of the undue influence of developers.

Rated highest – neighborhood representatives.  More than half of Americans, including 54% of Republicans “want to participate in local planning decisions for their communities.”

In what should send a strong signal to regulatory-obsessed regressives in state legislatures across the nation, water quality and protecting neighborhoods rank as top priorities, just after schools and before roads at the local level.

One of the intriguing things revealed in a recent analysis of feasibility studies and related correspondence by community leaders (don’t be misled by the title) is the primary justification for public funding of mega-cultural facilities such as theaters, stadiums and civic centers.

As a community leader confided to me years ago after a controversial theater project, these facilities are first and foremost a way of propping up property values usually to appease private development lenders, but often to block the encroachment of nearby blight.

Ironically, as disclosed in this excellent overview of the revitalization of Downtown Durham, the pivotal secret, as it has been in most downtowns since their advent 14 years ago has been the use of “New Market Tax Credits” from the federal government.

Interestingly though, a qualification for a lender (but obviously not the eventual development) is a “primary mission of providing investment capital for low income communities or low income persons.”

This intermediate lender then recruits investors, including financial institutions, with a 39% tax credit to, in turn, make marginal development projects feasible while increasing capacity to help truly low income neighborhoods.

According to reports, many types of tax credits including, perhaps, historic tax credits if granted for the adaptive reuse of an old factory, for example, can be used as collateral to leverage a loan.

Propping up or increasing adjacent private property values with a publically-financed theater, stadium or convention center is often needed as well for the same reason.

This federal program has resulted in $40 million of tax credits to date issued to 836 projects, and between 2003 and 2006 alone, Durham ranked sixth in the nation for New Market Tax Credits, first on a per capita basis, with 90% going to revitalize the 1-mile square downtown.

There is no shortage of people who take or are given credit for Downtown Durham’s current renaissance, but as the report suggests, the most credit of all, both here and across the country, belongs to every day taxpayers across the nation.

As I mentioned, national studies show that Americans prefer protecting neighborhoods to revitalizing them.  They also have different ideas about economic development.

Half believe the ideal community will have “locally owned businesses nearby,” the ability to “stay in their neighborhood as they age,” as well as sidewalks, transit options and neighborhood parks.

Only a third cite a unique character and/or culture.  Sense-of-place is about being distinct, not unique, coherent as though temporal, not manicured or “Disney-fied.”

Jobs are important to half, but two-thirds believe investing in schools and features such as transportation, walkability and diversity are a better way to grow the economy than investing in recruiting companies which nearly always require tax subsidies.

Quality of life features such as cultural and sports facilities are cited by just 1-in-5, on a par with having friends and family live nearby.  A third view “centers of entertainment” a high priority but only 1-in-10 view professional or college sports that way.

Top priorities for public investment by Americans are new sidewalks and pedestrian crossings, upkeep of existing roads, new roads and of course, education.

When it comes to economic development, regardless of size or type of community or region, Americans favor spending on high-speed internet, affordable housing and safe streets.

There is a distrust of turning over decisions to developers, planners and elected officials for the reasons outlined in the op-ed by a Raleigh transplant, not because of development per se, but when developers “show no respect for history, culture or anything else that makes a city special.”

The writer points to a Durham success as something for which Raleigh should strive.  But he could have just as well pointed to several recent examples of what not to replicate.

It is much too soon to “knock on wood,” Durham!

Measuring & Influencing Community Reputation

Even if she hadn’t recently telegraphed the response she desired, I couldn’t bring myself to disillusion a new acquaintance from Michigan as she proclaimed to a group of us that a two year nation television advertising campaign by one of the Big Three with Detroit as a backdrop had turned that city’s image around.

Even before scientific studies began to document the gradual and alarming decline of the effectiveness of advertising, that element of marketing had been long discredited as a means to turn image around – simply because it lacks credibility – because it is you talking about yourself.  But one area it still has traction is the sale of vehicles.

A scientific survey last month by Public Policy Polling confirmed that after two years of national television exposure, including spots run during two consecutive Super Bowls, Detroit’s reputation nation-wide is still a net negative by more than 2 to 1 with 29% of respondents unsure which had been predicted by experts in the weeks after the campaign launched.

I’m pulling for Detroit to turn its image around and I’m sure there are people there working extremely hard to do that. I know from experience that the formula for an image turnaround differs from community-to-community and must be based on carefully unwrapping and understanding the specifics related to audiences, internal and external audiences, both nearby and extended.

Things such as mega-events, mega-facilities or “being major league” are proven for far to long to be much too blunt as instruments to have any lasting effect on image. Even those attributed metaphorically with the so-called “billboard” effect, any change is fleeting much like that of the obsolete roadside medium.

Having had a hand in turning Durham, North Carolina’s image around, I’ve already written about how marketing intelligence or research helped us customize a formula here. I can tell you that the things many people signal as signs of the turn-around were a result of that phenomenon more than a cause.

I did take a moment though to compare the results of similar polls to document Durham’s popularity both within North Carolina and nationwide.

Within the state:

• Durham has been the most popular of the state’s largest five cities since the 1990s with a more than 60% net positive and half the average percentage negative or unsure for the group.

• Ironically, Durham’s net popularity statewide was 23 times greater than the city where residents were most negative about Durham. Knowing this helped isolate both causes and solutions that, when executed, helped Durham erase all but 11% of the negativity there while increasing the proportion who are positive by more than six times that amount.

• Nationwide Durham’s favorability has never been a problem except when there is a threat of contamination from pockets of negativity or water-cooler folktales.

• Durham’s net favorability nationwide is nearly 85% higher than the average for the 21 cities measured by Public Policy Polling but understandably the community is 24% less known and this is something where earned media or “publicity” is much better suited than advertising.

• Durham’s negative rating nationwide is one-third the average of the Public Policy group and lower than any of the 21 measured.

• Durham also has a much narrower favorability gap between genders and ethnic groups and I suspect the same would be true among those who live in metro vs. non-metro areas, although that was not measured in the Public Policy as far as I can tell.

There are three corollaries I learned during my decades grappling with community image:

• Communities are never as popular with external audiences as they believe and only scientific public opinion research provides a reliable benchmark both from which to start and then to measure improvement.

• When it comes to influencing community image, marketing can be a spearhead but some elements such as advertising and direct sales are far too blunt as instruments and lack credibility.

• A third is that marketing as a tool to turn-around and promote image must be about much more than applying lipstick. It is a must to admit what must be improved while always putting it into perspective.

Lastly, turning around image isn’t for the faint of heart or about cloning or playing politics.

Independent Voters At Odds On Issues

I’m not sure Republicans in the North Carolina legislature care what Independent voters like me think, but they should.  Overall, Republicans has lost the 11 point advantage Independents gave them and now trail among all likely voters.

Independents now represent 1/4th of all registered voters in the state.

Take a look at how Independent voters line up on six key issues of debate in the General Assembly based on various scientific polls including Public Policy Polling.

• 85% of Independent voters oppose permitting the outdoor billboard industry to override local tree ordinances and clear more trees so billboards can be seen for longer distances compared to only 9% in favor.

 

• 60% of Independents prefer to minimize cuts to education compared to 26% who support letting a temporary sales tax expire instead.

 

• 53% of Independents prefer a separate vote to extend unemployment benefits compared to 23% who support making it conditional on other issues.

 

• 46% of Independents oppose compared to 28% in favor of chopping a week off of early voting.

 

• 78% of Independent voters support retention of the law requiring greater reliance by utilities on renewable energy and energy efficiency.

 

• 80% of Independent voters support new legislation to double the amount of renewable power that energy companies are required to use.

Political parties formed almost immediately after the founding of this nation as a “representative” republic but not for the same reason.  We became a republic because it was hard for the general public to access information and voice opinions in a timely fashion.  But that’s no longer true.

Parties formed around dangerous factions focused on seeking power and control, a danger noted by President George Washington in his farewell.  I’m not sure the nation or North Carolina is ready for a pure democracy, although with new technology that is more than feasible.

It is still valuable for elected officials to take a closer and more in depth look at issues as long as they exercise what a recent book by a conservative columnist terms good “mental character” which is far more important for “real-world” judgment and decision making.  Far too many forget they are elected to represent “all of the people,” not just those who voted for them.

But several elements of “mental character” don’t come easily to many politicians such as the “tendency to collect information before making up one’s mind,” “seeking various points of view before coming to a conclusion” and a “disposition to think about future consequences before taking action.”

A good start would be for Republican lawmakers in North Carolina to listen to the collective opinions of Independents, that is unless they want the only time that party has controlled the legislature in 136 years to be “one and done.”

Poll Reveals NC Voters Strongly Prefer Local Control of Billboards; Majority View Outdoor Advertising as Detracting

North Carolina voters oppose proposed changes to state law that would take away local control of billboards and would allow more electronic billboards along highways and roadsides, according to a new statewide poll released by the N.C. League of Conservation Voters.

The telephone survey indicates that North Carolina voters overwhelmingly hold the view that billboards detract from the appearance of communities and strongly believe that placement of billboards should remain a local decision.

 

• 78% of Independent voters, 70% of Democratic voters and 68% percent of Republican voters, hold the view that billboards detract from the appearance of communities and strongly believe that placement of billboards should remain a local decision.

 

• More than 80% of those surveyed said they opposed removing more trees so that billboards could be seen for longer distances.

 

• Two thirds of those surveyed said they generally opposed any increase in the number of billboards in North Carolina.

 

• There is virtually no support from North Carolina voters for having the state tell local communities where and what kind of billboards can be put within their boundaries,” said Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling, a Raleigh-based firm that does public opinion surveys. “This is a rare issue where Democrats, Republicans, and independents are all in agreement.”

 

• 80% of voters surveyed opposed allowing up to seven electronic billboards per mile.

 

• An overwhelming 70 percent of North Carolina voters surveyed said that electronic billboards that flash changing ads every eight seconds would present a distraction to motorists.

 

• 68% of those surveyed said they almost never use a billboard in deciding where to buy a product or service, 20% used billboards a few times a month and 9% said they did so a few times a week.

 

• 90% of voters surveyed said state lawmakers should focus on creating jobs than weakening billboard restrictions, the same among Republicans, Democrats and Independents.

The poll was commissioned by the N.C. League of Conservation Voters based on the concerns expressed by a number of local community groups including Wilmington Council of Neighborhood Associations, Durham Inter Neighborhood Council, and Winston-Salem Neighborhood Alliance.

Contact: Carrie Clark, NCLCV

Tom Jensen, Public Policy Polling

For more information on proposed Billboard legislation, www.Savetheview.org