Monday, November 17, 2014

Billboard Industry Has Purchased Indianapolis City-County Council


Fellow blogger Pat Andrews has done a great job sounding the alarm bells about the subterfuge the corrupt lobbyists for the billboard industry have been engaged in the backrooms with members of the Indianapolis City-County Council, whose votes are pretty easy to purchase if we're being honest. Apparently for all the lip service paid by many members of the council to the notion of "building better neighborhoods," nothing trumps a few expensive steak dinners at the Capitol Grille or St. Elmos, free Colts and Pacers tickets, topped off with very generous campaign contributions to finance their re-election campaigns next year.

For those of you unfamiliar with the current law, which was worked out under former Mayor Bart Peterson, digital billboards are not permitted in Indianapolis. The billboard industry has devoted tremendous legal resources to overturning that law unsuccessfully over the past decade. Some of you may recall how the industry tried to upend the law as Mayor Greg Ballard was coming into office in 2008 by hiring then-Marion Co. GOP Chairman Tom John to lobby the Ballard administration to prevent the removal of ten billboards owned by Lamar which the City had obtained legal authorization to have torn down. The billboard lobbyists even hired the City's former corporation counsel to work on their behalf. As public pressure mounted, Mayor Ballard blocked moves already underway within his new administration to acquiesce to Lamar's lobbying power.

Under current law, the Metropolitan Development Commission alone has jurisdiction to initiate changes in the City's zoning laws. The lobbyists have successfully worked in the backrooms to convince a bipartisan group of council members to initiate recommended changes to the City's zoning law to prod the MDC into adopting amendments to permit digital billboards. The proposed ordinance in front of the "council for hire" was written by Bose Public Affairs Group, which represents Lamar. Councilor Mary Moriarty-Adams (D) introduced Proposal No. 250 on behalf of Greg Hahn, the lead lobbyist at Bose Public Affairs Group, which is the same lobbying firm associated with the law firm where Democratic mayoral candidate Joe Hogsett is now a partner. The other major billboard company, Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., is represented by Barnes & Thornburg's Bob Grand and all that that implies. If their proposal would become law, the existing billboard companies would conveniently hold a monopoly on digital billboards in Marion County.

I've posted compelling testimony provided to the Metropolitan & Economic Development Committee by Marjorie Kienle on behalf of Historic Urban Neighborhoods of Indianapolis ("HUNI"). She pretty much covers the universe of issues which should be foremost in the council members' minds if their votes hadn't been bought. There were two no votes cast by Vop Osili (D) and Jeff Miller (R); however, their comments made clear that they are on board with the concept in general. I learned many years ago when I worked for the Illinois legislature that among the sleaziest lobbyists in the hallways at the State House were the lobbyists for the billboard industry. Not much has changed after all these years. These people will do whatever it takes to get what they need, even if it means standing the process on its head. The council should be embarrassed by how it's being used by this industry, but it takes a lot to shame this council.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

What really bothered me was how the council members were openly discussing at this hearing the ongoing talks they've been having with the billboard lobbyists for a long period of time. None of this took place out in the open. If a change in the law was needed to prompt this extraordinary action by the council, why didn't they set up a task force and conduct those discussions in the open where all voices could be heard? They try to make it sound like their private discussions were public discussions when there had been no notice of hearings or opportunity for input before they dropped this bomb on the public and rammed it through committee after providing little advance warning. You are right. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Cathy Burton said...

Although I could not attend the Committee hearing, I believe this latest end run by the billboard industry is being sold to the Councillors as an "economic wunderkind" for Indianapolis. Maybe our new mantra needs to be "Hell no, we won't glow!"

Anonymous said...

Where is the local media coverage on this? Why is that I would not even know about this issue if it wasn't for the blogs and social media?

LamLawIndy said...

A practical question, Gary: What's the philosophical objection to digital billboards? If the billboard doesn't injure me, my property, or my wallet, I'm not sure that local govt should have a say.

Jeff Miller said...

Excellent blog post and excellent comments. I was the reason that MCANA and HUNI was aware of this ordinance as I have informed them during every step of the way. I required the billboard companies to present to those groups before I would even consider a yes vote. I have also consistently emailed every major media outlet as well as 700+ in my district about the upcoming legislation. I strongly feel everyone needs to be made aware of what is before the council. All of my conversations with the lobbyists have been shared with MCANA and HUNI and my issues with the ordinance have been very public. Last night the companies made almost every concession that I requested and applied alot of feedback from the neighborhood groups. But we still have a few points that need to be addressed before I can support it. Feel free to reach out if desired and I'd be happy to discuss it further. Sincerely, Jeff Miller miller4council@gmail.com

Gary R. Welsh said...

Carlos, I guess I was indoctrinated with the viewpoint that billboards are a blight on the landscape when I was growing up. The digital billboards only compound that blight. Talk to people up in Chicago who have to look at these tacky bright lights 24 x 7 in their neighborhoods. They're real big up in Chicago because individual alderman up there basically control zoning within their wards under their archaic, feudal system.

Thanks, Jeff, for sharing. Hats off to you for trying to keep MCANA and HUNI informed. I'm not convinced there is going to be fewer signs in the long-run, and I also believe the digital signs aren't a real improvement over traditional billboards. I think it's a slippery slope. Once the City of Chicago saw how much money could be made from digital signs, the Mayor started signing leases for them all over the City on city-owned property to provide extra revenues.

Anonymous said...

I've seen Mr. Miller straddle a fence so expertly in the past that I have every good reason for a jaundiced eye toward his self-serving comment posting.

Just another crony pay to play insider IMHO who has rarely found a Ballard deal he did not like.

Anonymous said...

Summary of Mary Moriarty-Adams accomplishments:
1) Helped Eric Turner get a taxpayer-subsidized nursing home in her district.
2) Helped a campaign contributor make a bunch of money off his white elephant Eastgate Mall property, which is a worse eyesore than the day he took ownership of it.
3) Helped the billboard industry light up the city with digital billboards.

Three strikes and your out? Probably not. Her constituents are too dumb to know better.

Jeff Miller said...

I am disappointed that anonymous doesn't want his/her name posted with their comment. Whether you agree with my positions, you can't claim I don't think them out. And to make an accusation that I am a "crony pay to play insider" without any evidence of what you mean is even more disappointing. You can look over my campaign reports and ethic reports and you won't see pay to play. I am not in this for money or power. I am in this because I truly care about the residents in my district and will fight for what is best for them. I openly share my views with my 700+ email list BEFORE I cast my votes so that if people have objections, they can approach me about them. I am unsure what else I can do to be more transparent. It seems you should be more transparent yourself and be clear about what you object to, rather than just cast stones. I am trying my best and as God is my witness, I truly put all my effort into making the right and best decisions that I am able

Anonymous said...

Is part of the goal of this effort to allow these companies to sidestep angry residents every time the companies want to put a new billboard up? I've got similar concerns about the recent push led by developers, officials and local media to revamp our zoning laws.

I don't want any more billboards in my neighborhood. And I sure as hell don't want my neighborhood lit up like Times Square!

Anonymous said...

ROTFLMAO! Anon 2:56 apparently struck a cord in a particular responder bringing to mind the Shakespearean phrase "methinks [the responder] doth protest too much!". And this "disappointed" responder - who conflates the issue with "transparency and thoughtful consideration and 'caring' about constituency and on and on and on" with a litany of excuses- actually ends up supporting Anon's point.

Jeff Miller said...

The current ordinance does not allow any new billboards. It only allows conversions of existing static billboards and in conjunction another static must be taken down (i.e. two for one conversion). Any conversions must be on static signs 500 ft from a dwelling district. So this ordinance truly is only about existing billboards becoming digital. Even so, I am still a no vote at this point, but I do feel things have come a long way since the start.

Jeff Miller said...

To yet another anonymous entrant...my only point was rather than make unfounded accusations at me, do research first. Research is not as much fun as attacking someone anonymously, but it will produce more accurate results. Also, it is my care and concern for the area that resulted in my no vote on this proposal. And yes, I am ultimately disappointed that people would attack me when I am putting so much effort into trying to do the right thing. Oh well, life goes on.

Gary R. Welsh said...

Jeff, I was looking over the proposed language in the zoning requirements for digital signs. It sure looks like the existing billboard owners will have a monopoly on the lucrative digital billboard business. The cap means the existing static billboard owners alone will be able to convert to the digital billboards, which have revenue potential many times higher than the revenues they earn from static billboards.

Hernan Dough said...

Get real. Watered down "conversion" of existing billboards is a ramp to wholesale change.

Concerned residents should consider strobe effects of 24/7 Vegas wash, related health issues & liability.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:36, add her work with the lobbyist led ridiculous fire alarm ordinance.

Jeff Miller said...

Great comment, Gary! I noticed that issue at the meeting as well and I've been concerned about that. While I like the no new billboard rule, it creates a monopoly for existing companies. I don't think that's a good idea at all.

Anonymous said...

I visited Hawaii last summer....not one billboard anywhere. Digitized or otherwise. What a nice surprise!