Scenic Nevada

In 2000, residents in the city of Reno enacted an ordinance by initiative petition banning construction and permits of new billboards. Twelve years later, on Oct. 24, the Reno City Council voted to override that ordinance.

Environmental organization Scenic Nevada started organizing against digital billboards in 2008, and has been actively appealing decisions made by the planning commission (“Bright blights, Feb. 9; “Screen savers,” July 5). Scenic Nevada, the local chapter of national non-profit Scenic America, opposes digital billboards because “they violate the billboard ban, mar scenic mountain views, contribute to street clutter, use far too much energy and distract drivers.” The voter initiative is a Reno Municipal Code called “Restrictions on permanent off-premises advertising displays.” The code states, “The construction of new off-premises advertising displays/billboards is prohibited, and the city of Reno may not issue permits for their construction.”

Now that a revised ordinance has City Council approval, Scenic Nevada has filed a lawsuit to void it. The organization had 25 days to file a lawsuit after the revised ordinance was approved.

“We filed a lawsuit because we believe that the ordinance violates the voter initiative of 2000, which banned new construction and new permits for digital billboards,” said Lori Wray, board member of Scenic Nevada. Lori’s husband, Mark, is the attorney for Scenic Nevada. He said that ultimately, the ordinance goes against the law set in place by the public.

“[Reno City Council] just left us with this horrible, horrible mess,” Mark said. “We think the law shows that what they did was dead wrong. … Can the City Council do what they did here? Of course it’s illegal. The citizens passed a law.”

Scenic Nevada made an appeal against the planning commission’s decision in July. Between July and October, the revised ordinance was finalized. Mark and Lori note that a similar, and successful, case in Arizona has set a precedent for other Scenic America groups organizing around the country. Digital billboards were erected in Phoenix, but the court ruled that digital billboards use intermittent light—which flash and change every ten seconds—and are a violation of the federal Highway Beautification Act.

“The state entered an agreement with the federal government to have codes and policies that uphold the act,” Lori said. She said that Scenic Nevada hopes to take a similar approach.

Mark said that the “overarching principle” of the issue is that the city is ignoring the wishes of the public. Scenic Nevada commissioned an independent survey in 2000 before the initiative was passed, which found that 57 percent of locals do not want new digital billboards in the city.

“It’s the public’s business,” he said. “This is a public lawsuit and the people have a right to know. … It’s not about helping billboard companies making another dollar. Why is the City Council enforcing the proliferation of new billboards? These are supposed to be our elected representatives. Who else are they representing?

“It’s very maddening. Think that only Scenic Nevada is fighting this? It’s not just Scenic Nevada. Nobody wants to drive down from work and pass a bunch of billboards.”

The City Council has 20 days to respond to the lawsuit, which was filed on Nov. 16.