5. CC 20-220 City Council Policy Priority #3: Electronic Billboards Phase 2 Update on New Programmable Electronic Signs and Signs Displaying Off-Site Commercial Speech on Non-City-Owned Sites. (Planning, Building and Code Enforcement)
I oppose the billboards for the same reasons many have listed. For environmental reasons as well as to avoid accidents. People are already distracted on the roads. The city needs to spend more money on the communities and cleaning up our streets and parks. There is filth everywhere due to homeless throwing garbage, people dumping items in the streets, old parks, graffiti and garbage all over our highways as well as old weeds everywhere. Nothing is being maintained.
The electronic billboards should not be allowed inSan Jose. There has already been an ordinance passed to stop billboards from destroying the quality of life and electronic ones will be worse. They will create light pollution for the residents who live in the downtown neighborhoods and will impede the astronomers in the Lick observatory from doing their research. This shortsighted agenda item has venal motivation on the part of commercial interests and should not be allowed to proceed.
In the memorandum, I found no explanation of the motivation. How much will jobs or tax revenue increase? Or, is it a libertarian view of freeing owners to use their property? I will be at work during the upcoming meeting but would appreciate reading an explanation in the minutes.
I would prefer that our city be styled more like the progressive cities of Europe than Las Vegas, unless there is a very compelling reason otherwise.
The residents of San Jose are flat out opposed to electronic billboards and worse, being steamrolled by a city council that insists on pushing this blight on us. San Jose should strive to be the "greenest" city in the country with renewable energy initiatives, green scaping (thank you, Our City Forest), and the like. There are many blogs and websites devoted to making cities green, and one of the criteria is a "city government who leads by example."
I strongly oppose all electronic billboards and all non- electronic billboards for that matter. Our city has enough graffiti, garbage, homeless trash, billboards, and signs along Hwy. 101. So we certainly don't need more visual pollution. As many have said, it is also a waste of energy and a big distraction for drivers.
My fellow citizens who are opposed to these billboards have said it all so there is no reason to be redundant. Please vote this measure down. NO BILLBOARDS!
I am completely and utterly opposed to these billboards. They are a danger to drivers and devastatingly bad for the environment, causing light pollution, wasting electricity, and all the many ways these two things are damaging. There is no benefit to the public, and much damage to all of us. There is no way I support this idea in any way shape or form. San Jose is known for it's bad moves, trying to be what it isn't. Protect what we have left, without further damage.
A billboard itself is unsightly enough. But electronic ones? San Jose does not need to mimic Las Vegas or Time Square - both are overdone and garish. Electronic BBs are energy consuming, light polluting and distracting to drivers. HWY 101 through SanJose is ugly enough. Please vote NO.
As a long-time resident of San Jose I'm extremely disappointed to see that the city council has decided to ignore valid concerns about the health and safety of not only the city residents but also the wildlife that depend on our skies for survival. Beyond the unwanted light pollution added to our neighborhoods and interfering with the migration of hundreds of thousands of birds on an annual basis, these signs will do nothing to combat the blight this city is experiencing.
I oppose the billboards for the same reasons many have listed. For environmental reasons as well as to avoid accidents. People are already distracted on the roads. The city needs to spend more money on the communities and cleaning up our streets and parks. There is filth everywhere due to homeless throwing garbage, people dumping items in the streets, old parks, graffiti and garbage all over our highways as well as old weeds everywhere. Nothing is being maintained.
I am a resident, voter, and teacher in San José. I teach is a River Ecology elective, and as part of this class we conduct research field trips and discuss how fortunate we are to have available green space and access to thousands of acres of South Bay ecosystems. The electronic billboard proposal puts all of that at risk by opening the door to light pollution, interference with the Pacific flyway, and causing drivers to be distracted on the road. Please preserve what makes SJ a treasure.
The electronic billboards should not be allowed inSan Jose. There has already been an ordinance passed to stop billboards from destroying the quality of life and electronic ones will be worse. They will create light pollution for the residents who live in the downtown neighborhoods and will impede the astronomers in the Lick observatory from doing their research. This shortsighted agenda item has venal motivation on the part of commercial interests and should not be allowed to proceed.
In the memorandum, I found no explanation of the motivation. How much will jobs or tax revenue increase? Or, is it a libertarian view of freeing owners to use their property? I will be at work during the upcoming meeting but would appreciate reading an explanation in the minutes.
I would prefer that our city be styled more like the progressive cities of Europe than Las Vegas, unless there is a very compelling reason otherwise.
My household is opposed to electronic billboards.
Electronic billboards increase light pollution and distract drivers.
The residents of San Jose are flat out opposed to electronic billboards and worse, being steamrolled by a city council that insists on pushing this blight on us. San Jose should strive to be the "greenest" city in the country with renewable energy initiatives, green scaping (thank you, Our City Forest), and the like. There are many blogs and websites devoted to making cities green, and one of the criteria is a "city government who leads by example."
I strongly oppose all electronic billboards and all non- electronic billboards for that matter. Our city has enough graffiti, garbage, homeless trash, billboards, and signs along Hwy. 101. So we certainly don't need more visual pollution. As many have said, it is also a waste of energy and a big distraction for drivers.
My fellow citizens who are opposed to these billboards have said it all so there is no reason to be redundant. Please vote this measure down. NO BILLBOARDS!
I am completely and utterly opposed to these billboards. They are a danger to drivers and devastatingly bad for the environment, causing light pollution, wasting electricity, and all the many ways these two things are damaging. There is no benefit to the public, and much damage to all of us. There is no way I support this idea in any way shape or form. San Jose is known for it's bad moves, trying to be what it isn't. Protect what we have left, without further damage.
A billboard itself is unsightly enough. But electronic ones? San Jose does not need to mimic Las Vegas or Time Square - both are overdone and garish. Electronic BBs are energy consuming, light polluting and distracting to drivers. HWY 101 through SanJose is ugly enough. Please vote NO.
As a long-time resident of San Jose I'm extremely disappointed to see that the city council has decided to ignore valid concerns about the health and safety of not only the city residents but also the wildlife that depend on our skies for survival. Beyond the unwanted light pollution added to our neighborhoods and interfering with the migration of hundreds of thousands of birds on an annual basis, these signs will do nothing to combat the blight this city is experiencing.