Its about time that we defend our township! For too long Solicitor Herder has cited every reason in the book why we must tolerate issues when they are forced upon us. I am happy to see that we are taking a stand for a change. We must succeed so that we are not so vulnerable to attacks in the future. Sometimes we all wonder whose side Solicitor Herder is actually on.

The above-picture does not reflect reality, for no pole-supported entities are envisioned.

Two billboards replace existing entities that promote local businesses [WG Mall and Huntingdon Pike] and the third is atop a bank-building [invisible to most-contiguous residences]; this testimony has not been refuted [and any suggestion that a "rental property near McDonald's" would have to deal with glaring-lights until 10 p.m. is a physically-impossible charge].

The three proposed monument-shaped entities are hardly a "blight" and the legal-costs to be incurred are unnecessary and counter-productive for The Forgotten Taxpayer.

PART - I

The above-hyperlink to an earlier article--

http://abington.patch.com/articles/led-billboards-on-old-york-road-huntingdon-pike

--then hyperlinks to another article--

http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2011/03/21/news/doc4d86a92ed86fa775837000.txt

--that is appropriately entitled "Communities face big bills for billboard fight."

*

The legal foundation for this effort is that these billboards allegedly contravene the government's duty "to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents."

*

In this regard, the 22 comments posted online regarding the earlier article are instructive. This was the most cogent input:

"ANYTHING that distracts drivers, even for a second, is a bad idea. There are so many other methods of advertising that do not compromise safety, we need to prohibit LED Billboards from our area. Its just common sense, and we should use much more than that and take a stand against LED Billboards as a Township. These billboards ARE going to cause accidents and possibly even tragedies....its only a matter of time."

The problem with this argument is that the proponents of the three billboards aver they have complied with PennDOT, and this particular argument was not contradicted. Therefore, the prognostication is not based on fact; it only constitutes the expression of an opinion that serves only as a call-to-action for those who generically oppose intrusion of external entities.

PART - II

The next attack is more disjointed:

"These billboard's are an eye-sore at minimum. Abington Township's residential and business zoned districts merge together. These will be seen by some from their own yards. Being welcomed by billboards along 95 and the Schuylkill into Philadelphia is awful. To have them in my own immediate community is intolerable. If the commissioners do not refuse these proposals and fight, this tax payer and her family are leaving."

My perception is at-variance, for they would not be pole-mounted, etc. [vide supra]. Zoning is specifically intended to minimize "merging" and the photos of the one closest to residences [atop a bank along Old York Road, the only one not displacing an already-extant sign] showed that it is not visible. Even if those along superhighways are "awful" and/or "intolerable," they are legal.

PART - III

Segueing from this posting [which also threatened relocation, as if this were to spark a mass emigration] is this one:

"BAD IDEA!!!!!! My wife and I work in Doylestown and live in Abington. We always consider moving to Doylestown, but remain in Abington because of everything Abington has to offer. Looks like I'm putting my house on the market before the billboartds go up. Thanks to the Board of Commissioners for making this an easy decision."

This provoked a response that was particularly revealing:

"Doylestown is facing their one and only billboard (fought against and lost) turning to digital...."

This both answered the earlier question regarding the definition of an "LED" entity and suggests that a legal effort will ultimately fail.

PART - IV

The essence of the next posting was in-error, inasmuch as the earlier "bullying" entity [Brandolini] was validated...notwithstanding my suit challenging the decision to acquiesce...here, undoubtedly threatening the "health/welfare/safety" of the residents [traffic @ T-intersection @ RR-bridge]:

"What happened to the rights of the residents. If the Commissioners do not fight this, then I think its time they all remove themeselves from office. I have been living in Abington for over 20 years in two different neighborhoods and have yet to meet my Commissioner. This is the second company allowed to bully their product or service into Abington. What rights do the residents have; aren't we the ones paying the taxes for this township? This Board needs to get their act together and think about the people of Abington."

PART - V

The next posting is also in-error, for the down-side risk is [if nothing else] legal-fees:

"There is no upside to this. The fact that the billboard company may have a legal right to put these eyesores up doesn't mean they have the moral or ethical right to create a visual blight where it doesn't now exist, and where none of us wants them. Our recourse is to vote the commissioners out if they don't fight this tooth and nail on our behalf, and ultimately to boycott the companies who advertise on these ghastly behemoths!"

Ordinances presumably encompass ethical/moral concerns, and it is suspected that the view that these would create a "visual blight" is not universally shared. Finally, it is unlikely that a boycott of the national companies that are slated to advertise would become anything more than a blip-on-the-screen.

Dr Sklaroff has missed the point. The majority of people in Abington are very content with no new illuminated Bill Boards! Solicitor Herder must take a positive stand on this issue and cease being such a wuss everytime there is a threatened law suit! I have been involved in countless litigation and can tell you that you don't always win but you never win when you don't fight at all. Bravo to the Board for taking such a valiant stand! Let's keep Abington the great place that it is for generations to come! God Bless Abington and the United States of America.

PART - VI

The remaining comments [including from three Commissioners] contain no additional "content"; they advocate various methods to mobilize the citizenry.

Therefore, unless this posting provokes anyone to provide new information, one might project that the public might wish to consult information being promulgated by the Billboard Industry--

http://www.outdoorbillboard.com/rent/pennsylvania.html

--and note the two already-approved entities on 611 [near Doylestown]:

http://www.outdoorbillboard.com/rent/pennsylvania/PA67.html
http://www.outdoorbillboard.com/rent/pennsylvania/PA68.html

*

Watch the videos on both Internet sites, note the pole-mounted presentation, and compare/contrast these already-approved [after a legal battle] entities with what is being proposed.

Then, ask yourself whether it is truly wise to fight this particular battle....

"The majority of people in Abington are very content with no new illuminated Bill Boards!"

Really?

"...you never win when you don't fight at all."

Really!

Victor's viewpoint may capture the emotionalism of a few boisterous people, but this will be resolved legally, based on statute/common-law and not by undocumented perception; realistically it really cannot be claimed that these three entities would constitute a cognizable threat to health/safety/welfare of the citizenry.

Dr Sklaroff should know well about law suits including the ones he is involved with against Abington Township. You certainly don't allow justice prevail by sitting on your duff. The Courts will decide this case and Justice wil prevail for Abington Twp.

concur; let's gauge the reaction to my analysis, for i notified all prior authors [on the prior article] of this string

NO Billboards. The residents of this township especially the area around and near this market place already endure ennough noise, ugly signs loud car stereo's traffic and semi's. Nothing is being done to defend the people that pay home and property taxes. We keep electing people that say they have our best interest in mind. But Nothing is done. We get the run around Passed off to someone else as a nuisience. We don't need anymore ugly loud signs. This isn't Philadelphia I-95. We live here because it was once a nice place. It's already become so ugly that when families come from out of area to visit they ask what in the world is going on.So I encourage the board to defend the people of Abington and stop this madness.

I chatted with the Township Manager last week regarding this issue, following the Annual Meeting of the Rydal-Meadowbrook Civic Association.

We had been told that the current status of banning all billboards--which arguably undermines the "Freedom of Speech" engrained in the Bill of Rights--is to be defended by charting a pathway developed in a recent Supreme Court decision.

Whatever it was, it would have been easier--legally--to have adopted this approach while composing a new ordinance, for the "burden of proof" now rests with the Township ["You won't allow ANY under ANY circumstances?" instead of the Billboard-proponents ["You can't abide by ANY of these community-based limitations?"].

The NIMBY-based argument will not pass muster legally, and it will be necessary to complete a prudent cost-benefit analysis before embarking on this relatively-minor Quixotic Crusade. Are there to be scientific analyses of the effect of a given-sized billboard that changes its LED-signs within a given interval? Is there to be a study of whether distractions are more likely to occur between 8-10 p.m.?

This appears quite unnecessary.

Billboards do not belong in Abington! They provide us no benefit. We need to stop receiving such poor legal advice from Solicitor Herder who misadvised the Twp on the 1180 Easton Rd Eminent Eomain Issue which will cost the forgotten Tax Payer with a 6 figure settlement! Enough is enough!

Billboards do not belong in Abington! They provide us no benefit. We need to stop receiving such poor legal advice from Solicitor Herder who misadvised the Twp on the 1180 Easton Rd Eminent Domain Issue which will cost the forgotten Tax Payer with a 6 figure settlement! Enough is enough!

Regardless of whether an individual taxpayer considers a billboard to be of-benefit, they are a manifestation of speech-freedom in the public space, as are other forms of advertisement.

If there indeed is a definable pathway to individualize an Abington-approach, then the proponents thereof should place it into an ordinance and then invite a challenge, rather than continuing to arch-the-back and place the local government into a position of defending the absence of any law that could accommodate reasonable ads [as manifest in other communities, nationwide].

Therefore, not accommodating this particular mode of communication is legally problematic, and promises to become [another] costly enterprise.

The sole purpose of the Bill Board issue in Abington is to financially enrich its owner while only causing grief to our residents. I commend our commissioners for not obeying the poor legal advice of Solicitor Rex Herder. We need to do what's best for the people of Abington. Let's keep Abington the nice place it is to live in. Let's not get caught in the "Wuss" syndrome!

Regardless of one's assessment of the professional capacities of the township solicitor, the key-issue is whether adopting the posture of banning this recognized mechanism of conveying "Freedom of Speech" is legally defensible.

When the Team is losing, it is time to replace the Coach. The time has come. Enough said!

concur

I am adamantly opposed to the installation of these billboards in Abington. If we permit this, we may as well change our name to "Philadelphia North". Does anybody think that Broad and Olney is an attrative area? That's what this kind of out of control commercial development does. There are residential neighborhoods within less that 100 feet. What will this do to those property values. I concur, this is a BAD IDEA.

Bart Freeman

Our Army fighting the Bill Boards is growing and will win the Battle! It is time to pull out all the stops! On to Victory.

...at what cost, to what end?

The rights of the Bill Board Company stop where my nose starts!! Thank god the commissioners are moving forward despite there legal advice. They are looking out for us not just for today but for the future of Abington. "Don't Tread on me"!

the right of free speech is guaranteed in the Constitution; in Upper Moreland, for example, the township avoided litigation by allowing for signs on the turnpike

Ready, aim, FIRE!!!!!!!!!

Take no Prisoners!

Turnpike and York rd are completely different species.

the key-point is that another township individualized the process of generating an ordinance...without instituting a ban; this is the model that Abington also should follow

Should the loan bill board be hosted in your back yard? This will become a problem although I admit it could be a good idea. None is certainly better!

the billboards are only to be placed in regions that are zoned for businesses, so this would not be c/w the ordinance as envisioned; actually, now that I think about it, if I could charge an annual-fee....

It is somewhat ironic that Abington is advertising on the LED-billboard on Old York Road in front of the Pavilion, yet opposes placing a comparable ["monument"-designed, not suspended upon poles] entity a few miles north [plus @ two other locales].