Imagine a world where billboards are as present as street signs. Wherever one turns, one’s gaze will be abruptly interrupted by a bombardment of outdoor advertisement. A world like this must be plagued with a blatant disrespect for the beauty of the environment that is driven by a desire to increase profit margins. Now consider Philadelphia where organizations like SEPTA also show a similar disregard for this city's environmental well-being; there is a fine line between the two.

If one didn’t know any better, it would be easy to mistake the above fantasy world for present-day Philadelphia. Billboards plague significant portions of the city of Philadelphia. With the way this problem is perpetuated by the lack enforcement of the very laws that guard against it, one would think that there are no laws in place to protect Philadelphia's visual environment. However this is not the case, for there are complex long-standing codes that have been in place for years for the sole purpose of preventing the explosion of outdoor advertisement that has unfortunately taken place. This is epitomized by the outright disregard for codes and laws that actively prohibit the proliferation of billboards in our city. Instead of using an iron fist, the government turns a blind eye toward all of the advertisement companies and business owners who seek extra profit at our city’s expense.

We have seen examples of this in several different locations, but the latest act of defiance has been seen in the Old City district of Philadelphia. SEPTA has used one of their terminals as a platform for advertisement as the entire structure is completely covered with a Red Bull wall wrap-style sign. Not only is this sign in the public right of way, which is explicitly outlawed in the advertisement code, but it is also located in a historic district where any non-accessory signs are prohibited. This is just one of the many examples of how businesses neglect the law in order to earn some extra cash. This type of disregard for the law has gone on for too long and must be stopped. In order for this to happen, the movement must start from the top with improved leadership and judgment on behalf of those who are supposed to be the leaders of this great city.

We've contacted the SEPTA spokesperson, Richard Maloney, and we are waiting for a response.

Call 311 to report any such illegal advertisement in your neighborhood.

On August 9, 2010, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled against Callowhill Center Associates' appeal against the Zoning Board for its denial of a variance to erect a mega-sized vinyl advertising wall wrap located in a protected area of the Vine Street Corridor.  For the second time, the building owner appeared before the state court appealing a denial of a variance for the 7,950 square foot sign at 413-53 North 7^th Street. 

The Commonwealth Court made two important rulings that will positively affect community groups.

First, it denied Callowhill's attempt to quash the community groups right to participate as intervening parties. Northern Liberties Neighbors Association, Old City Civic and SCRUB were allowed to participate.  Callowhill's attempts to further eliminate the rights of citizens and community groups to participate in zoning failed.  The Commonwealth Court prevented this in very clear language. Commonwealth Judge Patricia McCullough wrote: "Neither Spahn not section 17.1 of the Home Rule Act affected section 14-1807(2) of the Code, which permits parties who appeared before the Board to intervene as of right in an appeal to the trial court."

Second , the Court found "that Callowhill was precluded from raising any of its arguments in this case by the doctrine of res judicata" because the property owner, Callowhill was requesting a variance for the same size and "type of sign that was at issue in Callowhill I."

In the first Callowhill, dating back to 2002, the owners appealed the decision of the Zoning Board for a 7,950 square foot wall wrap and neglected to raise the issue of constitutionality at that time. The Court ruled that they cannot come back a second time with new arguments. Many thanks to our volunteer attorney Samuel C. Stretton who has represented the community groups in this matter every step of the way. We also wish to thank City of Philadelphia Law Department for their defense of the rights of participating parties to intervene.

For twenty years SCRUB's members have supported our vision and provided the resources we needed to lead this important work.  When you look around our city and see the naked beauty of Philadelphia's architecture, realize that you have helped us to preserve   hundreds of buildings from being covered with vinyl advertising wraps.

To View the History of this Case Click Here.

At 4855 James Street, in addition to the adult video store and spaces for parking, there is a double-sided piggy-back billboard  with a total of four sign faces. The owner, Risque Video,

applied for a variance to replace this nonconforming billboard structure to an LED digital billboard whose bright glaring messages will flash and change at 4 to 6 second intervals shining into the homes of several nearby neighbors and a church.

Due to prohibitions against rebuilding nonconforming billboards and putting signs with intermittent and flashing lights within 1,000 feet of residences (14-1604(8)b), the city refused the owner’s request for a permit.

The owner applied for a variance and appeared before the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) on April 6. Despite the failure for the owner to show any evidence of hardship the board granted the variance.

SCRUB staff found a petition opposing the sign in the file from neighbors living within 500 feet who were directly, adversely and substantially impacted. The Baptist Worship Center, located directly across the street from the billboards was also opposed. SCRUB recruited a volunteer attorney, Judge Hall, to represent the church and the residents and he filed an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. 

Risque Video, filed a motion to quash on the grounds that the parties had no had standing to appeal the matter.  SCRUB, The Baptist Worship Center and the neighbors filed an answer to the motion to quash, and the court held a motion hearing on Wednesday, August 4th at City Hall, 10:00 in Room 426.

Judge Idee Fox ruled in favor of the church, neighbors, and SCRUB, agreeing with Attorney Hall that the zoning notice had been improperly posted. She remanded the case back to the ZBA for a full hearing.

Upcoming Bridesburg Billboard Case: Owners of the towering 110 foot billboard that stands adjacent to Risque’s billboard is also seeking a variance to rebuild the sign structure. The ZBA hearing on this case is August 18 at 2:00, 1515 Arch Street, 18^th Floor.

If state officials get their way, electronic signs along highways informing drivers of accidents, construction sites and traffic jams will also be used to display commercial advertising. Private billboard companies will update and maintain these signs as well as sell advertising space. The revenue will be shared with the state.

As appalling as it sounds, the same sign that tells you to slow down for safety reasons could be used to pitch you the buffet dinner at the next exit, the casinos in the nearest city or promotions for cell phone plans.

Click here to email the decision makers who will influence this matter.

Click here to read more about the application

Pennsylvania has joined California and Florida in an application to the FHWA to waive the regulations that prohibit commercial advertisements on state controlled, overhead and roadside changeable signs in the right of way. The three states intend to contract with outdoor advertising companies to upgrade the current signs. The signs would be converted to digitalized ones, capable of showing fully colored, changeable, commercial images. They would be used like digital billboards, but they would target motorists looking for crucial traveling information!

SCRUB Fights The City’s Want of Billboards

The Associated Press

Updated: 07/03/2010 02:05:52 PM EDT

HARRISBURG, Pa.—Electronic signs along state highways that warn drivers of accidents, traffic jams and construction could be pitching them products if state officials get their way.

Pennsylvania has joined California and Florida in asking the federal government to allow the sale of advertising on electronic highway signs to generate money to fix roads and bridges.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation says the advertising could generate $150 million annually for each state. But traffic safety advocates argue that the ads could distract drivers and pose a road hazard.

The states are asking the Federal Highway Administration to waive several regulations that bar advertisements on overhead and roadside changeable signs. States would contract with private companies to upgrade and maintain the electronic signs, The Patriot-News of Harrisburg said, citing an application it had obtained.

If the waivers are granted by the federal government, state lawmakers would need to sign off on the plan because Pennsylvania law also bars commercial advertising on traffic signs. The state could begin a pilot program to test the idea if the Legislature approves that.

The Pennsylvania Turnpike allows ads on tollbooth windows and ticket machines that generated about $519,000 last year, said Carl DeFebo, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. Advertising has been permitted on tollbooths along the 545 miles of highway since 2000.

Safety organizations say the electronic signs are risky.

"They can be distracting," said Fairley Mahlum, a spokeswoman for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. "Most of the current concern centers around some of the new technology that is being used for signs, especially the ones that are big that use very bright LED lights that often change. Something like that could be very distracting."

Mary Tracy, president of the nonprofit Scenic America, which aims to preserve roadside scenery, said electronic message boards should be identified as a distraction like cell phones.

Looking at the epidemic that is outdoor advertisement in Philadelphia, one would not think that the same blight could be seen along the Nile River, one of the great natural wonders of the world. In previous years one could walk along the historic river and enjoy everything that it has to offer as an aesthetic beauty. However, now one’s attention will be jarred by the numerous billboards that sprawl over the once beautiful Egyptian landscape in Cairo, one the major centers of life in the African continent.

In his article appropriately titled, "Billboard Blitz (Drink This!) Alters Landscape (Buy That!) of City," Michael Slackman of the NY Times discusses the emergence of a new issue for the everyday people of Cairo to deal with.  This issue is one that stems from the recent outburst of outdoor advertisement throughout the city. This trend is seen throughout all of Africa’s major metropolises as the rate of commercialization has reached an all-time high. As a result, we are all witnesses to the atrocities that can take place when wise government policy making takes a backseat to maximizing profits.  Read more about how billboards are affecting people's lives in Cairo.

According to the Denver Post, citizens elsewhere have taken more aggressive approaches. Mexico City, considered one of the busiest and largest cities in the world, has tried to control the explosion of billboard through several aggressive legislative attempts in recent years(some more successful than others). The sentiment is that “[the billboards] are ugly and distract drivers.”

The recent trend that has emerged in places like Mexico City and Sao Paulo, Brazil, show that some cities, where opposition to the dissemination of billboards has reached an all time high, are willing to take strong measures to gain control of their public space.