Just cut them down!

[ratherbclimbing]

Here are some trees on I-40 East approx mile marker 404 in Knox County , TN. Apparently they were....uhh..Mutilated...for visibility of the billboard.

I would love to know who is responsible for this crime against nature. Why not just cut them down so you don't have to worry about your ridiculous billboard being blocked.

 

[ratherbclimbing]

Oh the billboard is apparently for lease there are the words at the bottom that say "There are blessings everywhere"

 

[Tr33Climb3r]

Do the same here. I have thought the same about just cutting them down. Even with them butchered they will still produce oxygen that we breathe once they re-sprout. I am just looking for something positive...

 

[MisterSir]

Florida DOT does not allow that type of "pruning." We have to inventory each tree blocking the sign and pay mitigation before removing to grade. The money is supposed to be used to replant elsewhere. I do a lot of billboard clearing.

 

[oldoakman]

We have been dealing with this in GA for several years. Outdoor advertising companies have successfully lobbied the state legislature to be able to top and/or clear trees on the state ROW to make the billboards visable and the governor signed the bill into law. It as immediately challenged and has been injoined by the court. We have a section of interstate highway that previously was declared a "scenic byway" and is exempt from the law and has no billboards. We cannot however plant any new trees within 500 feet of a billboard. Personally I would like to be able to tax the outdoor advertisers for each billboard face and have the tax fund our program.

 

[NeTree]

I'd rather see trees than billboards.

 

[ratherbclimbing]

I would feel better if they just cut the trees down and for every tree they cut down they planted one in a public park or playground.

I would also rather view the trees over the billboard but hate to see trees hacked up like this.

How would you guys go about contacting DOT to see about getting this policy changed.

 

[oldoakman]

The larger issue is, why should an industry control and benefit directly from a service paid for by taxpayers or be allowed to destroy a public asset. If the state DOT is cutting the trees or contracting the work out, the outdoor advertisers are the only ones getting the benefit, not the general population. If the outdoor advertisers are contracting and paying for trees on the DOT ROW to be cut, then the public is loosing an appreciating asset without remuneration. Personally I say cut down the billboards.

 

[NeTree]

[ QUOTE ]
The larger issue is, why should an industry control and benefit directly from a service paid for by taxpayers or be allowed to destroy a public asset. If the state DOT is cutting the trees or contracting the work out, the outdoor advertisers are the only ones getting the benefit, not the general population. If the outdoor advertisers are contracting and paying for trees on the DOT ROW to be cut, then the public is loosing an appreciating asset without remuneration. Personally I say cut down the billboards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed; why aren't the advertisers having to pay for it?

 

[treeness]

Government probably sees it in the sense that the businesses can clearly reach an audience which will obviously make the people want to spend money at said place and infuse the economy with money. I know thats my first reaction when I see a billboard...

 

[jeffswede]

You all do know it is all about money or lack of money, right.
Jeff

 

[stubcut]

Here's a thought that I've got towards billboards. We always here safety this or that. Don't drive distracted and such.....Are these billboards not distractions while we're driving? The ultimate answer has been thrown out already-it's about the money.

 

[moonfarm]

This is where I get to brag about living in Vermont-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard#Laws_limiting_billboards

Tim

 

[treebing]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather see trees than billboards.

[/ QUOTE ]

what kind of free market capitalist are you?

 

[treebing]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The larger issue is, why should an industry control and benefit directly from a service paid for by taxpayers or be allowed to destroy a public asset. If the state DOT is cutting the trees or contracting the work out, the outdoor advertisers are the only ones getting the benefit, not the general population. If the outdoor advertisers are contracting and paying for trees on the DOT ROW to be cut, then the public is loosing an appreciating asset without remuneration. Personally I say cut down the billboards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed; why aren't the advertisers having to pay for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is cheaper to pay the lawmakers. simple economics.

 

[NeTree]

The kind that would rather see trees than billboards, I guess. LOL