THE BILLBOARD BATTLE

The Motorist Lines Up Against the Adman

TO U.S. motorists, the billboard is an inescapable part of the American road. But should it be? In Congress last week, a pair of proposals, one sponsored by Oregon's Senator Richard Neuberger, the second by Commerce Secretary Sinclair Weeks, demanded strict federal controls over billboards along the new 41,000-mile superhighway system that is to be built in the next 13 years. Lined up in solid support of controls was a solid phalanx of citizens' groups, plus the American Automobile Association, and such devout anti-billboard crusaders as New York City's Park Commissioner Robert Moses. On the other side was the U.S. advertising industry and a host of roadside businessmen.

Both proposals have the same basic objective: to keep all but essential signboards at least 500 ft. from the new highways. Under both plans, the Federal Government would be responsible for controlling all Government-owned land, would also "encourage" states to control the land they own. Neuberger would help the states by allocating federal funds to buy up advertising rights; the Administration would withhold 5% of the Government's 90% share of construction costs from states that fail to pass restrictive legislation. The other main difference: Neuberger would ban all billboards except those at turnoffs advertising local business directly adjacent to the highway, while the Administration's proposal would also permit billboards in any commercial or industrial areas along the main highway.

The pro-billboard faction protests loudly that a billboard ban would hit the advertising industry hard, would also cripple many businesses whose customers are largely motorists. Last year alone, says the Outdoor Advertising Association of America, hundreds of big and little companies spent $200 million on outdoor advertising. The nation's 56,000 motels get all their income from motorists; hotels get 82% from highway travelers, restaurants 33%. Furthermore, say pro-billboard men, federal controls on highway signs might lead to further federal restriction on advertising, infringe on states' rights.

The admen argue that today's billboards are not a scenic or safety menace: 95% are concentrated near big cities; most are spotted to reach the maximum traffic flow, not blot out the countryside. In Michigan, for example, says President Clarence D. Blessed of Detroit's big Walker & Co., the admen's "enlightened" approach to road side ads has been so successful that the state has been "singularly free from agitation" to control billboards.

Billboard critics argue that since U.S. taxpayers will spend billions on the new roads they have a right to control the signs along the right of way. They do not think that U.S. motorists should become a captive audience for admen. New York's Moses and others point out that it is well within the Government's power to control billboards. The courts have "repeatedly recognized," says Moses, that billboards are an "intrusion" on motorists. As for states' rights—the grounds on which a federal billboard ban was defeated two years ago—Moses argues that "the Federal Government is not bound to help the states build highways. If it does, it is entitled to protect its investment by attaching proper conditions to its grants of aid."