Journal Editor

The absence of a city ordinance governing the illumination of billboards is being used by city officials to pressure a major outdoor advertising company to move a controversial large sign it owns from the corner of Touhy Avenue and River Road.

In addition, officials are considering allowing Lamar Outdoor advertising to relocate that billboard and erect two new large signs on what may soon become city-owned property. According to Community Development Committee chairman Ald. Tom Becker (6th), the fact that the city does not have a billboard illumination ordinance is being used to pressure Lamar into deciding where its billboards will be located. That includes moving the large sign at Touhy and River roads that stands close to several upset owners of single family homes.

Lamar has told the city that it has the right to erect five new billboards in Des Plaines having purchased the assets and stock of Premere Outdoor, Inc. in July 2003. Three of those five billboards have been erected, two along the Northwest Tollway and Mt. Prospect Road, and one on the west side of the Tri-State Tollway at River and Touhy. Lamar's plans call for the two other signs to be built along the Northwest Tollway on Touhy Avenue. They have not been erected.

The Des Plaines city attorney's office has said that the billboard rights granted to Premere in May of 2003 cannot be transferred or sold. On a June 2004 application to erect two billboards on Mt. Prospect Road, the name Premere/Lamar is listed as the applicant.

According to Ald. Becker, Lamar has agreed not to illuminate its billboard at Touhy and River. If it did, said Becker, the company could be ticketed because of the absence of a billboard illumination ordinance.

The city has also stated that it wants Lamar to relocate that billboard to a different location in Des Plaines. It, along with the two billboards that were earmarked by Lamar to be erected along Touhy and the Northwest Tollway may be erected on city-owned property, that it's believed has yet to be acquired by the city. Becker did not identify those potential sites. He said that if state and city permission is given to allow billboards at those yet undisclosed sites, the city will be paid a large sum of money to have the signs built on taxpayer-owned property. That amount of money could equal as much as $50,000 per year per billboard.

The sudden building of the billboard at Touhy and River earlier this year ignited a storm of protest from neighbors who said its presence is ugly and devalues their property. Becker said he was unaware that the sign was given approval to go up at the corner because at the regular City Council meeting where approval was given, he was absent.

Becker said the city recognized its strong bargaining position with Lamar when a review of local ordinances revealed that a billboard lighting ordinance does not exist. The city has a sign illumination law, said Becker, but it applies to much smaller signage than large billboards that are often seen by motorists who travel interstate highways.

"We're using that to say the sign at Touhy and River has to go," Becker explained. "We're using all we can to get rid of this sign." Becker said he does not know how many other signs Lamar owns in Des Plaines.

In the meantime, city officials have begun contacting other cities and states to learn what billboard illumination laws they have.

"Lamar has been agreeable," said Becker. "At the same time, they're a business and they have to get their signs lit. They know they have to work with us to get anything."

Becker also said that aldermen only narrowly agreed on May 19, 2003 to grant Premere the right to erect 10 billboards in Des Plaines. He said any new sites Lamar identifies as good spots to erect signs will need City Council approval.

"It was a close vote back then," said Becker. "I told them that if I vote for another billboard site, I won't until this one's out of there," referring to the billboard at Touhy and River.

At the May 19, 2003 City Council meeting, aldermen voted 4 to 3 to give Premere approval to erect 10 billboards. Becker did not attend that meeting. Council members voting "No" were Pat Beauvais (1st), Don Smith (7th), and Carla Brookman (5th).

On the subject of whether Premere had the legal right to sell the 10 billboard rights it had obtained from the city in 2003, Becker said he does not know. He said what he understands is that Lamar has obtained the right to erect five of those 10 billboards from Premere, but failed to exercise an option on the other five signs. However, added Becker, if Lamar purchased all of Premere's assets as believed in 2003, then the company has the right to all 10 outdoor advertising signs. In a letter from a Premere attorney to the city earlier this year, it indicated that media giant Viacom was going to erect the other five billboards.

City Attorney Dave Wiltse and Assistant City Attorney Ray Bartel have said that the sale and/or transfer of those billboard rights is not permissible. Wiltse recently stated that his recommendation on that subject will be part of a report he gives to City Council. That report, which was originally due to be completed in October, will be ready in November, Wiltse said last week.