OutdoorAdvertising /Billboards
MENU ON THIS PAGE
Nutshell Description of
the Billboard challenge
Latest Update
Resolution to support for your
Community - we want all
municipalities to pass this
Legislation to
support for our State - we need every towns reps to
support this bill
List of
other Towns & Townships battling this
Our rights by the PA Constitution
Locations in Abington and Billboard facts in Abington
Who are the
billboard people
?
Groups helping to fight this
Legalese & Caselaw
Resources & Longer Explanation
of the issue
Sample Letter to your
Senators & Representatives
In Abington -Summary Chronology &
Location of the Billboards in Abington
More Concerns
Nutshell Description
A very few companies , most of them owned by one man ,
have challenged as many as 18 communities that their sign
ordinance is invalid ( blanket prohibitions of billboards , he
claims, are not allowed by state law. ) He threatens expensive
legal action . municipalities and try to figure out how to
"limit their damage" or they have to stand their ground and face
an expensive legal challenge. The result is that one
man is able to put visual blight in town after town after town
because he can make a fortune doing it. The only hope is
that every Township will begin to stand their ground and every
judge will have his feet held to the fire to rule in favor of
the citizens and their constitutional rights. Fortunately,
Abington has chosen to do stand up to these bullies. We
are proud that they have done so. our rights on every front
depend upon people knowing that we will stand up for them.
The billboards that are being proposed are everything from 14 x
48 and much larger on a single post or digital changing
billboards built into concrete structures- or billboards placed
on buildings. all of them detract from the overall beauty of the
area, take eyeballs away from local businesses and local signs,
make the roads less safe as drivers put their attention
elsewhere, and violate our rights according to
the Constitution.
Latest
Update :
We want ALL
municipalities to get on the same page and pass ONE resolution )
Abington ( thank you commissioners) to take this on, on
our behalf.
Resolution #7- what we want all municipalities to pass
This resolution was
passed 6-11 at the Pennsylvania League of Cities and
Municipalities convention.
Submitted by the Southeast District :Regulation of Outdoor
Advertising
WHEREAS, the outdoor advertising industry has sought to
weaken and restrict the right of local municipalities to
regulate outdoor advertising billboards; and
WHEREAS, the use of outdoor advertising billboards has become
more prevalent with the growing use of large changeable
electronic message signs; and
WHEREAS, PLCM finds that such electronic changeable message
billboard signs can be a distracting safety hazard for
motorists; and
WHEREAS, PLCM finds that outdoor advertising billboard signs
when sited at inappropriate locations can cause harm to the
historic and aesthetic character of a community; and
WHEREAS, the PLCM has determined that a clear right for local
municipal regulation of outdoor advertising signage should be
established in the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: the Pennsylvania League of
Cities and Municipalities supports legislation and requests the
General Assembly to amend the Pennsylvania Municipalities
Planning Code to establish a clear right for local municipal
regulation of outdoor advertising signage.
.............This resolution supports amendment to the PA
Municipalities Planning Code to establish a clear right for
local regulation of billboards.
Congratulations to West Chester for leading the way on
this!
________________________________________________
Current Legislation To Support
House Bill 1273
Our Constitutional Rights
Article 1 Section 27 of Constitution of the Commonwealth
of Pa says “
The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the
preservation of the natural,
scenic, historic
and
esthetic
values of the environment.
Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common
property of all
the people, including generations yet
to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall
conserve and maintain them for the
benefit of all the people.
Our Commissioners take an Oath
to uphold the Constitution of the United States and of the
Commonwealth .
In addition, the First
Class Township Commissioner's Handbook charges the
Commissioners with looking out for the safety and welfare
of the citizens of the Municipality . Signs that are
intended both to distract drivers eyes from busy road and
intended to draw viewers eyes to their signs instead of our own
businesses and shops are surely not adding to the safety and
welfare of those in our township . Municipalities
do have this governmental police power to make laws that protect
health, safety and welfare.
Billboard Facts in Abington Township's challenge
Here is a summary - see blow for latest update
The applications in Abington were filed by a
company named MC Outdoor Advertising
Originally 5 properties on Old York Road &
Huntingdon Pike were chosen - but like his tactics in other
communities, he first presented the worst horror scene
then agreed to "moderate" his offer . The more
" moderate" proposal for Abington lands the giant signs
in PB districts like the Willow Grove Mall,
the Giant Store in Abington and the Old Genuardi's
Center (now doctors offices ) in Rockledge .
The applications made challenge the validity of our ordinance,
suggesting our ordinance cannot apply to them
because it is invalid by virtue of the fact that
there is a State Law that prohibits any blanket ban of
billboards
( or any other specific business ) . Township
laws must be in compliance with State Law they assert
The applications were made to the the Abington Township
Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB)
The blanket prohibition in the Township's current Zoning
Ordinance does entirely prohibits off-site advertising
however, it should be noted that we DO not entirely
prohibit it in actuality. It is allowed now by waiver and
exception - for instance on the bus shelters near
Holy Redeemer Hospital etc
Off site advertising signs are signs for entities not occupying
the property upon which the advertizing is placed.
Our assistant manager just proposed them for our public
lands, too .
This signage not only is designed to take a driver's eyes off
the road, but off site advertising also means that
another entity distracts the
viewer from seeing what our own township businesses have
displayed . In earlier
meetings we have been told our own
businesses need our help to stay afloat ( via tax abatements,
etc)
Exclusionary Zoning is when a zoning ordinance imposes
unnecessary requirements or regulations that by
their very nature exclude
a specific group or practice. Bartkowski has been known to offer
larger signs
only, so that if large
signs aren't accepted they can claim they have been unfairly
exempted.
Cases in other local municipalities exist - in 5 nearby
towns they are choosing to fight these Validity Challenges.
Others have won on incomplete applications
. In upper Providence safety was an issue .
There is a Federal Study underway re: safety and
signage - but it is unlikely to be presented ti next year.
Originally our Commissioners declared our ordinance invalid,
then they reversed that and hired an attorney
to meet the validity challenge in court and fight
it.
LIST of
TWPS AND MUNICIPALITIES
WHO ARE FIGHTING OR
HAVE FOUGHT THIS BATTLE, OR BEEN CHALLENGED
see : Map of just Bartkowski
challenges as of end of 2011
http://www.philly.com/philly/uncategorized/135881123.html
see :
Info on the 5 member coalition of towns opposing this
on the main line
http://www.prc.org/outdoor_ad.html - or go to
see : a map as of 12-11 of where some of
Bartkowski's challenges are
http://www.philly.com/philly/uncategorized/135881123.html
see :
Townships
affected by scrolling below - send us errors or
updates-
Abington -
http://www.abingtoncitizens.com/Issues/Advertising/AdvertisingBillboards.htm
Billboard Co
is
MC Outdoor LLC PO Box 1421 Malvern, PA 19355 (610) 975-9390 (same phone as Catalyst)
Thaddeus
Bartkowski III
Attorney
, Carl Primavera. ( Phila firm)
Update :The township as of 4-11 has reversed
their declaration of invalidity and decided to hire Attorney
James Byrne
who represents 5 other communities and stand up for
the Township's rights to determine their
own sign ordinances . The Old York Rd & Huntingdon Pike
locations had been swapped for proposed
locations in the PB (Planned Business ) districts including
Willow Grove Mall The Genuardi's Shopping
Center in
Rockledge
&
on Giant Supermarket Building Complex in Abington
among other possible locations
Status
as of 5-11:
http://abington.patch.com/articles/abingtons-lefevre-township-defending-stance-on-no-billboards
Residents have asked Abington Commissioners to support
the Resolution # 7 above and to support HB 1273
Allentown
-
Billboard Co is
Attorney
Ambler
Billboard Co
MC Outdoor Advertising
http://www.timesherald.com/article/20120126/NEWS01/120129645
Bryn Mawr -is Lower Merion & Haverford
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iISPehS2Dm0
Billboard Co BIG
Attorney is
Kaplin
Camp Hill
http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2010/04/harrisburg_areas_latest_drivin.html
Billboard Co
Attorney is
Concorde -
The Billboard Co (Anter ) lost in commonwealth
Court 3/11
Others
are challenging:
Billboard Co is Mid-Atlantic Development Partners
LLC,
Mid Atlantic Principal Patrick Wolfington
They're in their 6th or 7th Zoning Hearing
Attorney - Gregg Adelman, from Kap-Stewart
Law Firm
Where : 100, 200 and 300 blocks of Wilmington-West Chester
Pike.
Sizes 10 feet, 7 inches by 29 feet, 9 inches, or
315.88 square feet.
2-12 ???? split decision - one allowed one not ?????
The Concord vs Anter decision : Denied based on
problems with the application
http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/2508CD09_3-23-11.pdf
Commonwealth court upholds denial of billboards in Concord (Delco
Times article
Prior Concord Press :
http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/11/04/news/doc4cd21ce1a07f1892989818.txt
Doylestown -
Doylestown Lost - now they're coming back to fight
for more
Billboard Co is Outdoor Partnership (In-Plaza
Advertising) Dave Curry
Doylestown Residents call the billboard visual pollution
East Norriton -
www.EastNorritonResidents.org
-
Billboard Co MC Outdoor Advertising
Attorney Greg Adelman
Nov 2011 Article
http://www.timesherald.com/article/20111129/NEWS01/111129611
Apr 26, 2011 the Board meeting will
discuss it &
they will be having a zoning hearing May 10, 2011 on the
challenge to the validity of their ordinance
which allow billboards in industrial areas -
The locations they are requesting are on Route 202
across from the McDonalds (2938 DeKalb Pike), at 205 W.
Germantown Pike near the credit union
and at 229 W. Germantown Pike.
http://www.timesherald.com/articles/2011/04/24/news/doc4db47e7696532490491627.txt
Exeter -
The township was considered
to have had a blanket prohibition which was not allowed and
further , they only protested it on part of Route 422
and seemed to allow it on another part .
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-supreme-court/1302767.html
Haverford
http://www.nobillboards.com
Haverford also
includes Bryn Mawr
Billboard Co
is Bartkowski Investment Group (BIG) principal
Thaddeus Bartkowski III
Attorney for BIG , Marc Kaplin
Haverford chose to fight the Billboards .
In Oct 2011
they held a hearing for citizen input
Nov 17 , 2011video-taped deposition will be shown
Lower Merion
includes part of Bryn Mawr
Adsmart lost re the
five points intersection in Bryn Mawr.- because he didn't
have a permit (?)
It was ruled illegal by Lower Merion Zoning Board
October 14, 2010 and appealed in
County Court
in Nov, 2010 - ongoing
Billboard Co is Adsmart principal Thaddeus Bartkowski
III
Attorney Marc Kaplin (Kaplin-Stewart
Law Firm )
On the border of Haverford Twp so LM is fighting
Lower Moreland
Billboard Co Catalyst Outdoor Advertising
Challenged sept 2011 - in November approval for 5 came
before the Board
http://lowermoreland.patch.com/articles/more-lower-moreland-billboard-locations-recommended-to-board-of-commssioners
Lower Providence
- JP
Mascaro offers 50,000 to end litigation & allow his
billboards
http://pottsmerc.com/articles/2011/05/09/news/doc4dc7e9ba42ac8909376682.txt?viewmode=fullstory
2
billboard s with static format on one side and a
digital, changeable-copy format on the other
side.
14-by-48 feet (672 square feet) and max height of 51.5 feet
& would face onto Route 422
MB Investments ( with Landowner JP Mascaro) Attorney
Wm Fox
There is existing billboard 800 ft away .
Lower Southampton Clear Channel
and Outdoor Partnership were denied at first based on fact
that the
township prohibited billboards . They appealed
using the Upper Southhampton case. The township
then said they did not have "land
development " permits . The Zoning Hearing Board said they
didn't
need Land Development permits . The Township appealed
to Common Pleas of Bucks Co and that
court reversed the ZHB decision. The Commonwealth court then
agreed with the Common Pleas
Court
but that decision was appealed and reversed in 11-07
Billboard Co is Clear Channel & Outdoor Partnership
Marple
- Billboard Co BIG
_ Thaddwus Bartkowski
Dec 2011 Marple wins a decision
http://www.delconewsnetwork.com/articles/2011/12/07/marple_newtown_county_press/news/doc4ede7a79a044e138734455.txt
Earlier :
http://www.nobillboards.com/marple They put their
ordinance in compliance before Bartkowski came to
challenge them (a
curative amendment)-
but something wasn't filed right - he challenged them
in
local court
and Bartkowski lost -
Another recent challenge in
Commonwealth Court resulted in an April 2011
decision to
reverse the summary judgment in favor
of the township on the complaint and
remand it back to
the county court for further proceedings.
http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2011/04/19/news/doc4dacec062c668416272416.txt
Billboard Co
is Bartkowski Investment Group (BIG) principal
Thaddeus Bartkowski III
they did try doing a curative amendment. Bartkowski
challenged that they had not followed
the correct procedures . Bartkowki lost the
first round & appealed
Commonwealth Case will be argued Feb 2011
It is possible that one of the sites might have required a
renters approval of the signage ....not confirmed
Milbourne
- discussing the issue
Morton
http://www.nobillboards.com/morton Has been on hold .
Might be August or later of 2011....
Morton is a small boro...
Billboard Co
is Bartkowski Investment Group (BIG) principal
Thaddeus Bartkowski III
Attorney
Sign applied for on a piece of Baltimore Pike - 7 signs.
New Hope/ Solebury
-
Billboard Co is
Attorney
Newtown Twp (
Newtown Square
)
Delaware
Co
http://www.nobillboards.com/newtown
Next Zoning Board date is 2-15-2012
Check Twp website for changes
Bartkowki put it on hold for 18 mo -
they just started zoning hearings in Feb 2011
They want billboards on West Chester Pike
Billboard Co
is Bartkowski Investment Group (BIG) principal
Thaddeus Bartkowski III
Attorney -Primavera
Thursday, March 15th, 7 pm
next hearing - it was posponed 3 mo in a row
Philadelphia -
a lot going on SCRUB is working on this - they have many
different laws from first class twps
Billboard Co is
Attorney
Phoenixville
- 3 sites along Rt 23 Dec 15 2011
next meeting
Billboard Co McOutdoor Advertising (?) &
Chester Co Outdoor Advertising represented by
Amee Farrell of the law firm Kaplin Stewart
and witness Patrick Wolfington
Dec 25, 2011
http://articles.philly.com/2011-12-25/news/30556870_1_billboard-wars-v-shaped-billboards-outdoor-advertising-business
Dec 16, 2011 Legal aspects
http://phoenixville.patch.com/articles/phoenixville-billboard-hearing-concludes
Residents voice concerns Dec 16, 2011 and
comments on article recommend boycotting the
businesses so they put pressure on their landlords not to
lease -- also to calls to lawyer & law firm
http://phoenixville.patch.com/articles/speakers-voice-emotional-appeals-against-potential-billboards-in-phoenixville
Springfield,
Montgomery County -
Billboard Co is Mc Outdoor
Advertizing Thaddeus Bartkowski
Attorney Greg Adelmann
Sept 2011
http://www.montgomerynews.com/articles/2011/09/15/springfield_sun/news/doc4e72478c1ff9c308231238.txt
Next meeting Oct 2011
Twp Commissioner Doug Heller's Site
http://www.hellerspringfield.com/issues/billboards.htm
Springfield,
Delaware County -
Billboard Co - BIG Thaddeus
Bartkowski
May 2011 update :
http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2011/05/20/news/doc4dd5dbb8a4e5b363463899.txt
The Zoning
Board turned down the applications circa 3-24-11
It will be appealed at the County level - Common Pleas
Billboard Co
is Bartkowski Investment Group (BIG) principal
Thaddeus Bartkowski III
BIG attorney Carl Primavera
http://www.nobillboards.com
News
report Oct 2010
Upper Moreland
Township
Billboard Co Interstate Outdoor Advertising
In 1965 the PA Supreme Court ruled that their blanket
prohibition to off-site advertising signs
was " exclusionary zoning
"
Update They settled for one
http://montgomerynews.com/articles/2011/06/08/public_spirit_willow_grove_guide/news/doc4defdefe9fea5440336592.txt
Upper Providence --
12-09 Won a decision in
commonwealth court - It was unpublished and couldn't
be used
for case law until a recent (Pa?) supreme court decision
reversed that and it now can be used .
The opinion issued upholds the denial of
the billboard applicants request due to safety .
Billboard Co is Steen Outdoor Advertising
Attorney Leslie
Gerstein
Feb 2010 Steen initially
challenged the validity of Upper Providence zoning code /
the township presented evidence the signs would be
“injurious to
the health, safety and welfare of the traveling public.”/
Steen appealed the decision to Delaware County Court of
Common Pleas/
In June 2008 the court upheld the Zoning Board’s ruling/
Steen appealed /........
then ?
Upper Southampton
Billboard Co won
Baker v.
Upper Southampton Township Zoning Hearing Bd.
, 830 A.2d
600 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003), appeal denied, 849 A.2d 1206 (Pa.
2004).
West Chester Boro
- crafted Resolution for the League of
Municipalities -
That resolution may have been adopted 4-7-11
A Resolution That Your Township's
Leadership Can Promote --find
it
just below this section
Westtown -
Billboard Co - Chester County Outdoor LLC
Thaddeus Bartkowski III
Petition
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/badrowdz
Commissioners settled with Billboard Co 8-11
http://dailylocal.com/articles/2011/08/18/news/doc4e4c5066dcb53536806683.txt
Whitemarsh-
already installed several
Billboard Co is - Clear Channel -
Attorney
Wilkes-Barre
(the community won but
forgot to send in their paperwork??- ended up with the sign
anyway ???? )
Billboard Co is
Attorney
Others
? - please
let us know
** to reach interested parties from
these areas - contact
LEL@abingtoncitizens.com
_________________________________
WHO ARE THE BILLBOARD PEOPLE or COMPANIES
CHALLENGING US ???
Thaddeus Bartkowski III --- again and again .
http://www.philly.com/philly/uncategorized/135881123.html
Patrick Wolfington in league with Thad , and also has
been an expert witness for him
Adsmart Outdoor Advertising -
principal - registered in PA
BIG -
Thaddeus Bartkowski
investment group -
principal -registered in PA
Catalyst Outdoor
http://www.catalystoutdoor.com/
no PA registration yet found
same phone as MC Outdoor
Chester County Outdoor LLC -Thaddeus Bartkowski III
has been represented by Amee Farrell of the law firm
Kaplin Stewart and witness Patrick Wolfington,
Interstate
Outdoor Advertising
MB Investments
MC Outdoor LLC PO Box 1421 Malvern, PA
19355 (610) 975-9390 - Thaddeus Bartkowski
no PA registration
yet found -no website found ( they may exist - let us
know if you've found them )
Mid Atlantic
Development Partners
-principal Patrick Wolfington,no PA registration yet
found
Wolfington has also acted as witness for Bartkowski
Steen Outdoor Advertising
MORE ABOUT BARTKOWSKI
Map of Thaddeus' challenges as of beginning 2011
http://www.philly.com/philly/uncategorized/135881123.html
Thaddeus III's Film
Credits:
Thaddeus in Abington 3-21-11
http://www.abington.org/channel43.htm
then go to March 21 Zoning /Billboards
Thaddeus Bartkowski III testifies in Haverford -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPAmy5_7s3A
http://vodpod.com/watch/2664267-no-billboards-in-bryn-mawr-thaddeus-j-bartkowski-iii-states-his-case
Thaddeus uses
Kaplin's law firm ( of Brandolini/ Baederwood fame) :
Lawyers from that firm include Aimee Farrell ,assistant Kristen D. Shepherd
RESOURCES &
POINTS UNDERSTANDING THIS ISSUE :
Please do not rely on anything found here without checking
the facts out yourself.
*
A PRESENTATION OF THE COMPLETE ISSUE
by William Brinton Esq :
This more "in depth than most want - but is
excellent to see what all is entailed in this issue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F0wAiuqqWs
covers all phases of the Billboard
issue - This takes place at
nearby Springfield Township .
Billboard
Points to Consider :
Few " Blanket Prohibitions" exist in reality - Most
ordinances are administered in a manner that puts no
blanket prohibition
on" outdoor advertising" , billboards etc. Our
Townships are given the ability to waive
provisions of ordinances
based on the judgment of the Commissioners or
Supervisors. Do you see ads on
Bus Shelters, benches, etc? There is outdoor
advertizing allowed, just not any that usurps the
rights
of others. There are
outdoor signs allowed- they just have size
regulations to prevent their intrusion on
the rights of
others.
The
determination of size is to preserve the
safety, welfare, aesthetic and other
Constitutional rights of
the citizens - as they are required by law to do.
Billboards are signs. Period .
Whether you call them "Outdoor advertising" or
"Billboards" instead of
signs, they should
not be considered separate. All regulated
advertizing is outdoors. The only indoor
signs we might regulate
are ones inside glass door or a window facing
OUT.
Onsite signs are necessary to help
navigation - to find the store or property.
Off-site advertising that
aids in this purpose should be
considered differently than offsite advertising that
distracts drivers and
diminishes navigation ability. Do we
have a law that differentiates these purposes? We
certainly should.
Safety Studies There are
numerous studies that show that distractions to
driving increase accidents . Our
Legislators are required by
oath, law and Constitution to protect our safety.
Property
owners should have equal rights. If billboard
companies are allowed large signs,
so should all property owners be- but
you can imagine what THAT would look like.
No one has the right to diminish the
rights of another - Property owners have a
right to fair and equal
competition for the attention of
"eyeballs", citizens have a right to determine their
collective scenic and
aesthetic values as granted by their
Constitution and we all have a right to have our
Constitution
defended & our safety & welfare
protected by our legislators (without
being "bankrupted" in the
process) What is happening is a few
are benefiting at the expense of the safety &
welfare of many.
Decreased property values also diminish our
welfare. Would you choose a property next to a
billboard
if you could choose the exact same
property with no billboard in view?
Access to Legal protection under the law - Do we have a
right not to have our welfare threatened by
lawsuits so that our welfare is
diminished either way : via the billboards
themselves or via the threat of an
unfeasibly costly lawsuit.
Legislators should act to amend this flaw in our
system.
Legal reform may be needed to amend validity challenges.
When a flaw in an ordinance is found,
no one should be allowed to
exploit that for personal gain at the expense of
others. The 180 days
to amend the ordinance is reasonable
but should INCLUDE those that discovered the
flaw.
Legislation should be proposed
to amend this.
Some
businesses have # of change restrictions of 1 x
per day . The digital sign requests are
for changes
every 7-8 seconds Will everyone be able to do this
? What would that look like?
Signs that distract viewers from the signs of our businesses
are not in the interest (welfare) of Abington
property owners, nor of residents who rely on sound
businesses to aid in taxes (welfare) .
Digital Signs are an environmental blight - these use up
more energy & will overload local grids if they
are allowed freely.
Digitals can consume between 13 and 52 households
worth of
electricity - or as
much as 46 times the energy needed for a lamplit
billboard - and of course
much, much more
than standard signs as regulated by townships by
choice.
Billboards can be
dangerous - and can fall down - A clear channel
sign fell down in Delco last Feb (2011)
Driver Safety -
The purpose of the signs is to take driver’s eyes
from the road to the sign –
add up in one day
all of the time that the sign is being viewed & eyes
are not on the road .
If you limit lighting hours - I,they may accept it
now but fight you on that (later)
If you
limit
the kinds of "messages"
& they can put on – they may agree now then fight
you ( later)
If you
limit
the size of the signs, & they may agree
now then fight you ( later) after they are
installed
If you
limit
digital & allow only only, they may agree now
then fight you ( later)
after they
are installed
If you
don't
fight them
now – so you don't have to keep fighting them
later.......
Residents have to decide what they want
in their town according to their Pa Constitutional
rights
Corporations do not vote & do not have the right to
decide for us what our aesthetic and scenic rights
are
How can they possibly have the right to determine
what an entire Township must accept?
Bait & switch tactics are being used everywhere
by these companies . should be looked into as to
whether
they stand up to regulations
re: unfair business practices. With threats of of
lawsuits, these companies
propose monstrosities near
residential areas, near churches & schools & then
settle for something
"less onerous" saying that will avoid
litigation. Do we have laws against such tactics?
Those
that use them should not be
rewarded by our courts or by our Commissioners
capitulating.
Experts (like Jerry Wattel ) have testified
regarding the safety. Some other experts who
had argued that
there was no safety issue, were shown to have no
credibility from having previously concluded
the
contrary. A child could recognize that our
streets would be less safe with so these huge
distractions.
_________________
All the townships required to uphold the Constitution of
the Commonwealth should join together in a
group along with their local and regional
legislators ( State Reps, Senators et al ) to effect
legislation
that offers relief when someone poses a
challenge that monetarily has the potential to
bankrupt our
communities in order to enforce the citizens
rights, and to aid each other against any unfair
business
practices.
.
|
1) THEY CAN BE DANGEROUS -
__________________________________
GROUPS WHO ARE HELPING
THOSE BATTLING THE BILLBOARDS
The Penna Resources Council
-(PRC)
http://www.prc.org/
Carol Butler Environmental Program
Specialist
3606 Providence Road Newtown Square, PA
19073 610-353-1555 ext 230
butler@prc.org
Scenic.org ---- http://www.Scenic.org a pittsburgh group
ascertaining our rights to the scenic environment
SCRUB Public Voice for Public Space
in Phila -
www.publicvoiceforpublicspace.org
Mary Tracy, Executive Director
1315 Walnut Street Suite 1605
Philadelphia, PA 19107 215-731-1796
No Billboards
www.no billboards.com
- great site loaded with links and info
No Billboards in
Haverford
www.nobillboardsinhaverfordupdate.com
Haverford Blog
www.haverfordblog.com
Save Ardmore
Coalition
www.saveardmorecoalition.org
Westgate Hills
Civic
www.westgatehillscivic.org
Urbanblight.org
www.urbanblight.org
_________________________________
LEGALESE &
CASE LAW
What rights do we have ?
Article
1 Section 27 of Constitution of the Commwealth of Pa
says “
The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the
preservation of the natural,
scenic, historic
and
esthetic
values of the environment.
Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common
property of all
the people, including generations yet
to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth
shall
conserve and maintain them for the
benefit of all the people.
While the Exeter Case has been relied on by the Billboard
Companies to a great extent ( where the Billboard Companies
prevailed) there is ( increasing ) case law where the
Billboard companies have lost their battle. In Upper
Providence there was an unpublished case, which until a
recent supreme court decision could not be relied upon
because it was not published. Now it can be .
In Concorde the Township denied the application ( they are
appealing as of this writing) and in Springfield
Delaware the Zoning Board turned down the application
. If you can support these townships, please do so -
because the more case law we have the more the next case
will have by way of support. There is a (Federal ?) highway
safety study underway and the hope is that this study will
boost the ability to turn down these applications based on
safety.
Hoping
to publish some of the cases soon where much caselaw is
cited
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=272&invol=365
email me if
you need them right away
_________________________________
If a lawsuit is filed, please keep in mind
that you can register your status as "party" to the
proceeedings . Please research fully , but this should
be a viable option for being kept up and informed of the
proceedings . This is different than public comment, as a
party, you will be included in any notice of appeals and/or
settlements and should you choose to do so, allows you the
opportunity to appeal court rulings.
Excerpt from the Pennsylvania
Municipalities Planning Code, Article 9, Section 908.3
3) The parties to the hearing shall be the
municipality, any person affected by the application
who has made timely appearance of record before the board,
and any other person including civic or community
organizations permitted to appear by the board. The board
shall have power to require that all persons who wish to be
considered parties enter appearances in writing on
forms provided by the board for that purpose
Excerpt from the Pennsylvania
Municipalities Planning Code, Article 9, Section 908.5
5) The parties shall have the right to be represented by
counsel (not necessary at the Zoning Board Level) and shall
be afforded the opportunity to respond and present evidence
and argument and cross-examine adverse witnesses on all
relevant issues.
As a "party" you have OPTIONS!
___________________________________
SAMPLE LETTER TO
YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES FROM HAVERFORD
Date:
_____________________
Dear _____________________,
I strongly urge you to
unite with other state elected officials, like Daylin Leach
(Senate Bill #1139) and Bill Adolph (House Bill #2085), to
write and pass legislation that addresses the
issue of outdoor advertising control and protects our
hometowns.
I am a Haverford Township
resident who owns a home and pays taxes in this township. At
the beginning of 2009, a proposition, a set of applications,
an unconstitutional validity challenge, an attack, began on
my township and four neighboring Delaware County townships
of Marple, Newtown, Springfield and the borough of Morton.
The Bartkowski Investment Group (B.I.G.), fronted by
Thaddeus Bartkowski, III, very quietly began soliciting
businesses to sign 30-year contracts to erect 672 sq ft
sized billboards that will loom over every building, tree
and many backyards in Haverford Township.
I am extremely concerned
about the impact these enormous billboards will have on the
value of my property, traffic safety and the economic future
of Haverford Township. I am also very apprehensive
about the possible content of the advertising and its affect
on the many children that are growing up here.
According to Scenic America, Pennsylvania is in the top five
of the Mid-Atlantic region for having the most billboards
the country, even
globally. Caught in the middle are citizens like me,
desperately hoping for laws to be written and
passed to give us the right to preserve and protect
our hometown character, property values and economic future.
The unbridled growth of
the outdoor advertising industry, without stronger control,
could mean billboard blight throughout the Keystone state.
This average Pennsylvanian, American, voter, and taxpayer,
knows in their heart that something is wrong when corporate
growth outweighs the voice of WE THE PEOPLE.
This issue is not about protecting the free speech
rights of advertisers, billboard developers and a few local
business owners; it is an issue of protecting the rights of
the thousands of residents and local businesses those who
have paid the taxes and have made this family oriented
community what it is.
Haverford Township
residents are overwhelmingly opposed to this kind of
development in our community. We feel unprotected by
state laws and legally and financially bullied by the
outdoor advertising industry. How can this company,
representing only five property owners of five locations in
Haverford Township, have the right to negatively change the
face of my town forever?
Townships need State laws
on their side when it comes to the preservation of their
communities. Residents should have a say in their
community development. Corporations do not deserve
more rights or even the same rights as WE THE PEOPLE.
___________________________________________
IN ABINGTON
Advertising
is on the rise Township wide. Neon signs are now being permitted
- often with waivers for far beyond what our code allows. There
are requests or discussions about using our bridges and other
public spaces as "advertising" spaces. Our ordinances are
being revised - not in the right direction for the rights of
citizens to be furthered. The
bus shelters
are plastered with advertising that often presents wholly
objectionable scenes on our streets - the most provocative scene
from a racey or violent movie, for instance. Is there any
place that will not be blighted with ads in the near future at
this rate? News is out today about another
advertising adventure about to befall us ....
In our view
Our ordinance is apparently in need of amending to
protect the citizens, not just to comply with the law.
The law increasingly supports corporate voices over those of
the citizens who vote. And if our Commissioners won't stand
up to it on our behalf, there will be even more of it .
If
you don't understand the implications of this in your
township, please see the
YouTube video
of a nearby Township presentation on the billboard
situation.
Even more importantly, perhaps, is that we begin to
recognize that the
actions at the State level that affect us so dramatically
are generally out of our purview. No one brings us
that news as these rules are being passed – we don’t
know when it passed - no one notified us. We don't have
regular updates - sporadic ones at best. We were not rallied
against it or asked to write letters. We were not notified
before - or after - billboard rules became
law. We were largely clueless, but for a very few among us.
We do desperately need to find a way to have government
brought to us in a manner that we can understand what is
being done and how to participate, actively. The
normal channels are not working. Not surprisingly, since
transparency is a word with little meaning in our government
- both locally & nationally. The billboard rule
is great for businesses, onerous for most residents.
It is residents who are the voters. We put people in
place to "represent us" - but we find corporate voices
represented over ours time and time again. By the very
people we elected.
The State requirements that solicitors be allowed in our
neighborhoods ( a safety issue), that newspapers
thrown on our properties cannot be prohibited ( safety and
quality of life ) , that we cannot prohibit excessive
building, even on steep slopes in overbuilt areas like
Baederwood, (causing flooding, traffic, loss of green
etc., etc., etc.) or that billboards must be allowed
----- these are just small examples of a process
that needs to be changed at its core --- not battle by
battle by battle by battle until we are too weary for
more.....
As you can see from the list above , there is a
five Township/Boro coalition fighting this against
Bartkowski Investment Group (Springfield Township, Delaware
County ( from whence our new township manager hails
and is currently managing un January 2011 ) Haverford,
Marple, Newtown, and Morton . Lower Merion,
Concorde Township, King of Prussia, New Hope and
others are fighting billboards, too.
Would a coalition of every township across the state
carry some clout? Indeed. If citizens were
informed and united it would undoubtedly make a difference.
Ultimately, the state laws should reflect what
the citizens of this state would like to see. Isn't
that how it's supposed to work?
Contact me
if you have any thoughts to share or would like to be
involved in helping keep billboards off of our Township
roads.
SUMMARY & CHRONOLOGY
in Abington
10-11 We're in a "lull" right now in the lawsuit -
congratulations to Abington to do for taking it on if every
Township did this- and worked together it would make a
difference
4-11 Abington reversed it's
decision to declare it's ordinance invalid - and hired
James Byrne ( who represents at least 5 other towns ) in
fighting the billboard challenge. The matter has gone
to court .
3-21-11
Bartkowski presented a
new plan - after having met with commissioners individually
or in small groups and . Residents were not
notified nor invited to these meetings. If your
Commissioners
throw in the towel, not only do they NOT help reduce the
challenges by attempting to provide good case law - but they
also will show our township to be a place where
Commissioners don't stand up. Recently someone told me an
expert witness in one case for the Billboard company, who
insisted the large signs were fine, turned out
apparently to be the author of zoning verbiage in that town
years earlier that said that signs should be small in order
to be safe!!!!! We ARE given the right to protect our
safety -- and we need our Commissioners ( and some very good
lawyers ) to recognize that and to stand up for our
rights .
Incidentally the Billboard lawyer in question with the
dubious witness listed above, was none other than the
lawyer for our infamous Baederwood validity challenge"
that left us with overdevelopment and much more that
is not in the interests of our residents or community.
2-2-11
Our Township declared our existing sign ordinance invalid &
on Jan 13th called for a Curative amendment. They
faced another validity challenge. First the
solicitors challenged ( now we have them wandering through
residential neighborhoods because we modified our ordinance
) , then came the Baederwood challenge, (now we have 75
foot hi buildings because we modified our ordinance) and
now billboards........
Here's a question-- who's not bringing
our ordinances up to date …….Doesn't Montgomery County work
on that with our zoning people? Didn't they know about these
challenges? Our new Manager is from Springfield Delaware who
has been fighting this for a long time….. Shouldn't that
have given someone the heads up when they were doing
their homework on him ? This was going on in his
Township during that entire process . Who did the vetting
and why didn't they bring this to our attention so our
ordinance could be brought into compliance BEFORE Bartkowski
came ? If we want a township that is run properly, we
need answers to these questions.
This challenge was originally to
put billboards on York Rd & on Huntingdon Pike. Large
ones, too. But as in other townships, a bait & switch
tactic seems to be at play. In March 2011 after
presenting the most odious pictures he could find drawn in
along York Rd - Bartkowski said he would
agree to ones that were just in the "business" areas -
Still huge - still a blight on the landscape - but now
they wouldn't be towering above the residences. He has
pulled the same or similar in other townships . His
signs still block out HUGE portions of our view and allow
him to sell his giant message boards to anyone no matter how
objectionable or crass the subject, with just a few
limitations . It is certainly not what I , or other Abington
residents I have spoken with, want in their township.
Many of us want our Commissioners to fight
for our rights under the PA constitution. Bartkowski may
have the right to pollute the scenic view on his own
property - but does he have the right to pollute the scenic
and esthetic value of our whole town wherever his
dollars allow? Our Township itself seems to be
considering every every piece of common property
theirs to sell. At a recent meeting our assistant manager
suggested off-site signs be permitted for sale on our public
lands . But the job of our township is to preserve the
esthetic and scenic values of our town and our common
property and resources. I believe they have already
made a motion to allow advertising on our bridges .... and
our bus shelters are one big billboard - often with
objectionable scenes for our families to drive by.
. These billboards clearly provide unsafe conditions in
a congested town where people are walking in front of cars
and cars are pulling out of side streets. They are DESIGNED
purposefully to draw drivers attention away from the road .
Our Commissioners are charged with the duty of
attending to our health, safety and welfare . They
should to be able to protect ourselves against
unsafe conditions and in addition we have the right of
the preservation of both scenic and esthetic values of the
environment. But to have our rights, we need our
Commissioners to stand up for us. Springfield Delaware
is not done their fight - and many other townships have
chosen to fight . The more they do, the better
everyone's chances of not being sold down the corporate
river. I have urged our commissioners to join with other
townships in asking legislators to call a moratorium on
these challenges until proper safety studies are available .
Unsafe = drivers reading billboards
instead of watching traffic in a busy town. In addition,
anyone from out of town can come in and take a bigger amount
of attention away from our local stores. So it does
them a disservice, too - and we have enough that are empty,
struggling or in need of help right now - not in need of
competition .
The Board has 6
months from (12/20/10) to enact the curative amendment.
"Reasonable" restrictions (size, type, number and location) are
allowed and Commissioners said they will institute the most
restrictive ordinance that is likely to withstand any
additional challenges. Will protect our safety --- and the "
scenic " value in our town ?
Will they wait to see if Springfield, Haverford, and
others prevail …
Besides
safety, Pennsylvania residents should remember that our
constitution provides for us these rights :
Article 1 Section 27 of Constitution of the Commwealth of
Pa says “
The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the
preservation of the natural,
scenic, historic
and
esthetic
values of the environment.
Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common
property of all
the people, including generations yet
to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall
conserve and maintain them for the
benefit of all the people..
LOCATION OF THE ANTICIPATED PROPERTIES IN ABINGTON
Currrently :
The Willow Grove Mall, near the pond on Moreland
Rd
The side of the Giant supermarket in Abington and the
Rockledge Shopping Center ( Doctor's offices, Rite Aid
area ) entrance on Huntigdon Pike
Originally they bought leases on
1600 Old York Road Amoco
Transmissions (?)
1706 Old York Road Plant Outlet (?)
1713 Old York Road A-1 Locksmith (?)
1844 Old York Road Kiku restaurant (?)
917 Huntingdon Pike - Former 711 - now Karate Studio - near
the lukoil station and the medical domed building
________________________
MORE CONCERNS
The proliferation
of advertizing is going hand in hand with the proliferation of
corporate rights over those of individuals. What this means,
simply, is that individuals who incorporate or act on behalf of
or as part of a corporation are now being favored over those who
who did not/ are not . This is not an example of
fair or equal rights for all. We had better start paying
attention and changing the nature of this trend .
Here's an example of advertizing
on individual houses .........
http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/04/07/shill-on-a-shingle-billboards-finally-hit-houses/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl8%7Csec3_lnk3%7C209304
Please feel free to
send your information to us and please be sure
to tell us about any information you believe to be incorrect - write
lel@abingtoncitizens.com
|
