Billboard Study Adding Fuel to Billboard Fire in Revere

March 21, 2012
By

Those living next to billboards have never liked being under their shadow, but until now, no one has ever been able to put a figure on just what that shadow costs a homeowner.

A study of the impacts of billboards on property values – released this past December by a Philadelphia researcher – is now being used in the local fight against billboard expansion, and its results show a meaningful loss in value for those close to outdoor advertising displays.

The “Philadelphia Study” – as it’s being called – came to light through the research of Revere Beautification Committee (RBC) member Ron Champoux and City Councillors Bob Haas and Brian Arrigo.

During a discussion last month of a specific billboard proposed for Copeland Circle, many began to wonder whether such things affected property values. The vocal opponents and the vocal proponents realized that conjecture was not adequate, and they needed real figures.

“At the public hearing that Monday night, I didn’t know if there was any information about property values and it made me want to find out,” said Champoux. “I came across this study and the findings are pretty interesting.”

The study, called ‘Beyond Aesthetics: How Billboards Affect Economic Prosperity,’ was funded by the non-partisan Samuel Fels Fund of Philadelphia at the request of an anti-billboard group called SCRUBS. Researcher Jonathan Snyder performed the study throughout Philadelphia last summer, and presented the study this past December.

Among his findings were that all properties within 500 feet of a billboard in Philadelphia suffered a $30,000 decrease in property values upon their sale.

Snyder told the Journal that the study was a statistical analysis using Regression Analysis and the decrease caused by billboards was statistically significant.

“Properties purchased within 500 feet of billboards have a decrease in sale price of $30,826 and the correlation is statistically significant,” read the study.

Snyder said in a telephone interview this week that the one thing that affects sale price most is the amount of livable square footage, naturally. The second thing to affect the price was proximity to amenities like bike paths, libraries and parks. In the negative, billboards were not far behind.

“We looked at independent variables and what led to higher or lower prices,” he said. “The strongest variable was livable square footage. That, of course, was obvious; the bigger your property, the more expensive. Another strong variable was proximity to parks, bike trails and other amenities – all positive increases. When you added the independent variable for proximity to billboards, it wasn’t as strong a relationship as square footage was, but it still had a negative affect. It was somewhere close to a $31,000 loss…Billboards do make a difference.”

Additionally, the study looked at zoning controls on billboards in 20 major U.S. cities. Comparing the zoning restrictions on outdoor advertising in seven different categories, the study classified each city as either “strict” or “not strict.”

In those cities that were not strict on their zoning controls of billboards, the study found that the median income was lower, poverty rates were higher and home vacancy rates were higher.

Opponents to the findings of the study – such as Clear Channel Outdoor, one of the largest billboard owners in America – told the Journal that they don’t necessarily agree with the study.

“We respectfully dispute the findings of the study, but more importantly, billboards play a critical role in effectively promoting local businesses, which is part of building strong local economies,” said Jim Cullinan, a spokesman for Clear Channel, in a statement. “Beyond that, we won’t comment on the study.”

Meanwhile, other executives in the billboard industry indicated that there is a similar independent study coming out in a few weeks that is funded by the billboard industry and comes to a different conclusion.

“That study has been going on for the last year and is due out within the next two weeks,” said the source. “It has a strongly different viewpoint on this.”

Meanwhile, back in Revere, City Councillor Haas said that the billboard issue has suddenly become the largest issue in the city, and he is responding.

“I’ve been in this game a long time and of all the issues, this issues has become paramount,” he said. “People are really ticked off about billboards in Revere right now. They’ve been here for years, but we’re talking about quality of life and billboards right now.”

Haas said he has asked City Clerk Ashley Melnik to gather zoning ordinances concerning billboards from several surrounding communities. Once that information is in hand, Haas said the Council will use it to see where Revere might be able to make changes, maybe where the City can be more strict with its controls on signage.

Meanwhile, Snyder said he hopes that his study continues to inform such discussions and, perhaps, spark more study of the issue.

“I do hope it stimulates the discussion beyond just dollars and sense arguments for billboards in a community and aesthetic arguments against billboards in a community,” he said. “I think the study gives, in a real way, a recognizable monetary figure for an aesthetic argument. I hope it stimulates the discussion so that people can examine whether billboards really contribute as a whole to a local economy as some would say they do. I also hope it leads to more research because not much has been done on this.”

  • Ken Kueker

    Not a surprise that two studies, funded by opposite sides of an issue, would come to two opposite conclusions.  Kind of demonstrates how many studies have largely become useless for getting to the truth.

    There are a few comments about the study from the anti-billboard group.  First, it is not a surprise that areas with billboards have lower median income for several reasons.  First, most billboards were built  more than 15 years ago, and older areas do tend to have lower income levels as newer, more expensive developments are built.  So the lower income levels are really just a product of something that has no relationship to billboards themselves.

    Second, billboards are naturally located on busier roads in commercial areas, again areas that tend to have lower incomes because people who can afford it don’t want to live next to busy highways or heavy commercial development.  So again it seems more coincidence than anything directly related to the presence or absence of a billboard.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/P7S27UVVZ467GZNV6ZSQACRFXA Dave

    Who cares.   The point is that the public deserves a say when it comes to billboards, because they provide absolutely no inherent benefit to the public, but have numerous costs (even if different studies disagree about the magnitude and nature of those costs).   If a private individual wants to erect an ugly billboard in public airspace, it should be taxed very heavily so that the public derives some benefit.

    The people of Revere should be applauded for finally giving a $h1t about something (same should be said about the Ethanol train issue)!

  • Evreader

    It would be nice to get rid of all of them.  They are an eyesore.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_V5JMRUAKDIQLIHAFZFYYHUFLKM William

    The ETHANOL issue should be the next focus on the quality of life in REVERE. Why aren’t the pols rising up againist this dangerous issue that could cause undue harm by way of explosions erc?

Search the Journal

Recent Activity

Full Print Edition

Get Adobe Flash player