Comments on: Is The Moratorium Being Ignored?

By: slackmeyer

slackmeyer — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:56:37 +0000

Thanks Cathy. I really appreciate you taking time out from a very busy schedule to talk about this. I imagine you’ve heard I called Russell Claus trying to find out about this.

By: Cathy O'Connor

Cathy O'Connor — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:36:50 +0000

Steve, I did a little research and here is what I found out about the billboard:

The Moratorium on non-accessory signs (billboards) in the Downtown Scenic Highway Area was originally passed on March 16, 2004. There was an exception to the ban permitted in the ordinance for permit applications that had already been submitted and could be completed or issued within 30 days. This temporary ban was made permanent by Ordinance #22,564 on November 10, 2004. There was also an exception in this ordinance, which allowed for the relocation of an existing sign in the moratorium area when the sign was condemned and caused to relocate by court order. On September 11, 2007 a citywide temporary moratorium was placed on non-accessory signs while new regulations were developed. On February 13, 2008 Ordinance #23,546 was passed that added new rules for all non-accessory signs and deleted the exception for “court ordered” signs in the moratorium area.

Between March 16, 2004 and September 11, 2007, 5 permits for non-accessory signs were issued in the moratorium area:

924 S.W. 6th Street-One billboard permit issued to Lindmark Outdoor Advertising on March 31, 2004 because it was submitted on March 15, 2004, prior to the ban, and was completed within 30 days.

1530, 1708, 1736 W. Reno Avenue- three billboards issued to Lamar Advertising on August 14, 2007 because of the exception for court ordered relocations due to condemnation. These are behind W&W Steel at Reno and Pennsylvania Ave.

440 E. I-40 –One billboard permit issued to Lamar Advertising on December 4, 2007 because of the exception for court ordered condemnation. This is south of Bass Pro Shops.

I hope this provides some explanation about how the billboards were permitted.

By: Steven

Steven — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:47:58 +0000

@slackmeyer, so what’s the latest on this? Are you going to call out the City Council on this? Please do a feature story on this.

By: James

James — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:16:54 +0000

t a point where the firefighters contract is putting the rest of services in OKC in a bind; the police and other unionized labor may be in a similar position,while city revenues (inlcuding sales tax) is down and we are worried about outdoor advertising. Cattlemans receives a significant portion of their business through outdoor advertising. Are we chasing the small stuff because we lack the intestinal fortitude to resolve the big stuff?

By: Larry

Larry — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:11:19 +0000

Steven, understand what you are saying and don’t disagree with beautification. But billboards are one of the most effective ways (and in many cases the only way) of getting people that are just passing through to pull off. The Mayor has even said we do a horrible job of doing that, by banning billboards they aren’t helping the situation.

By: Steven

Steven — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:17:04 +0000

The CITY COUNCIL needs to be called out on this one. It’s a bunch of crap if they allow billboards on the new “alignment” (didn’t know it was crooked the first time). Our city despirately needs all the beautification it can get, and billboards surely don’t help. There are other more effective ways of advertising than billboards that pollute our landscape.

By: Larry

Larry — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:46:33 +0000

Kent, no, I don’t think that Cattleman’s or any attraction gets all of their business from billboards. They DO however get a lot from those just passing thru town who DON’T stop to ask around. For those that DO stop and ask, they are primarily folks that have stopped for gas. In OKC that means the truck stops out by Council and the Fort Smith Junction (both a ways from Cattleman’s and depending on which direction they are traveling, may have already passed it. Many people traveling don’t wish to backtrack. Plus at those truck stops there are often a variety of eating places right there and many choose to make it a one-stop affair. There have been many times over the years that my family and by myself have indeed gone to a place based on the billboards. If advertising didn’t work, why would they spend the money on it?

Like I said, I am not defending them on a beautification standpoint. Most advertising (TV, radio, print, internet and billboards) is annoying and not the most attractive thing to see or hear. However it serves it’s purpose and by banning it at the exact target audience that you have spent 100s of millions of tax $$$ on, seems counter-intuitive. Does it not?

By: Doug Loudenback

Doug Loudenback — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:16:34 +0000

Maybe so, Steve, but I prefer to think that your blog is haunted.

By: slackmeyer

slackmeyer — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:00:02 +0000

The problems are with the WordPress spam filter. For some reason it’s catching some legit stuff. I’m checking it and clearing stuff as often as I can. The flip side is you would be viewing a lot of garbage in these comment threads.

By: kent

kent — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:42:53 +0000

larry do you really think that all the customers at cattlement are from billboard advertisement>>>>

How often when you have been traveling have you stopped at steak restaurant that was advertised by billboard?
General I think you ask around.