A Superior Court
judge has sided with the Metropolitan Development Commission in a dispute over digital billboards. Outdoor advertising giant
Lamar had sought a summary judgment so it could proceed with plans for two electronic billboards along East 46th Street near
I-465 in Lawrence. A zoning board in Lawrence gave its approval for the signs, but opponents appealed to the MDC, which agreed
to hear the case. That's when Lamar filed a lawsuit challenging the MDC's authority to potentially overturn its approvals.
Marion County Superior Court Judge Theodore M. Sosin last week ruled that MDC indeed has the "ultimate administrative decision
in cases that raise a substantial question of zoning policy." Marion County ordinances specifically ban advertising signs
that display video or graphics. An MDC hearing on the Lawrence signs is scheduled for Sept. 16. The MDC last year overturned
a zoning board approval for a digital billboard near Keystone at the Crossing, also for Lamar. More about that decision is
here.
- Home
- NEWS
- REGIONAL
- THIS WEEK'S PAPER
- BLOGS
- Multimedia
- OPINION
- A&E
- LISTS
- PEOPLE
- EVENTS
- Classifieds
- Subscribe
Welcome to Property Lines, Indy's source for neighborhood real estate news. Your host is Scott Olson, IBJ's real estate beat
reporter. Edited by Cory Schouten.
A Superior Court
judge has sided with the Metropolitan Development Commission in a dispute over digital billboards. Outdoor advertising giant
Lamar had sought a summary judgment so it could proceed with plans for two electronic billboards along East 46th Street near
I-465 in Lawrence. A zoning board in Lawrence gave its approval for the signs, but opponents appealed to the MDC, which agreed
to hear the case. That's when Lamar filed a lawsuit challenging the MDC's authority to potentially overturn its approvals.
Marion County Superior Court Judge Theodore M. Sosin last week ruled that MDC indeed has the "ultimate administrative decision
in cases that raise a substantial question of zoning policy." Marion County ordinances specifically ban advertising signs
that display video or graphics. An MDC hearing on the Lawrence signs is scheduled for Sept. 16. The MDC last year overturned
a zoning board approval for a digital billboard near Keystone at the Crossing, also for Lamar. More about that decision is
here.
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
-
It's also across the street from Fogo de Chao and Morton's....
-
Yep, the haters are trying to make good news bad. I guess it is hard to get people to believe the series is dying when they are gaining new sponsors.
-
David Copperfield! I remember watching his specials on TV when I was little.
-
Don't forget this is next to an MMA gym, a pawn shop, and some abandoned spaces.
-
Good project for Zionsville - A group who has owned the property for many years has waited and worked patiently to bring highest and best use development to a major corridor, and mix that in with the great downtown you have. Win Win. All the Best to Pittman Partners and Zionsville.
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
IBJ Conversations
29 Comments
Add Comment
If the citizens of Lawrence (or Speedway, or Beech Grove) want to light up their night sky with these things, why should Indianapolis stop them?
businesses at the mall. There has been some questions about the fact
that some of the advertising is for businesses that don't have a
physical presence at the mall (hence it's just a billboard).
Mark - you raise a GREAT question! Inconsistency in what is approved and what is not approved by the local authorities is also a challenge for users and sign companies.
I just wish we were more progressive and the benefits were more clear to those granting approvals and denials. Good luck Lamar - I'm pulling for you!
IC 36-3-3-2
Mayor as executive; election; qualifications; term of office
Sec. 2. (a) A mayor, who is the executive of both the consolidated city and the county, shall be elected under IC 3-10-6 by the voters of the whole county.
The nine-member commission has appointments made by the Mayor, the CCC, and the County Commissioners (an ex-officio body consisting of the Treasurer, Auditor, and Assessor). The Mayor and Commissioners are all elected county-wide, and all areas of the county have representation on the City-County Council.
But average joe still would like to buy a beer on Sunday. I am tired of the ridicule from my out-of town guests.
Let me make clear: personally, I agree that billboards are not a good visual influence on a community and I'd rather not see them. Likewise, inner-city liquor and check-cashing stores. But all are legal, and all are protected by the Indiana Constitution against ex-post-facto changes in zoning law that would try to outlaw them once legally established.
The perverse economic impact of outlawing NEW billboards (which Marion County has done) is that the existing ones are even more valuable to their owners; regardless of your preference or mine, advertisers are still willing to pay to put their message up. They apparently have metrics that connect the ads to action.
In short: this is a legal and economic problem, not a design and planning problem.
I, for one, am glad that our county officials have taken a stand to limit these obnoxious and ugly blights on our community. I have no sympathy for Signlady05's argument. Take your digital billboards somewhere else.
if they aren't. Sometimes moving into the 21st Century is not a
good thing.
P.S. (I couldn't resist): Careful SE-Guy. You're starting to get political. Someone might hijack this posting. :)
Off the top of my head:
an east side Insurance company
Schlotzsky's/Sprint (it's so small, it's pointless)
Brinkers Jewlers
There are at least 3 Lamar digital billboards.
I wonder how Carmel would feel if these billboard where going up along 31 from I-465 north to 190th street. mmmmm. Its OK over there, but not in my back yard...
See how that works.
Billboard bans are no different than any zoning ordinance that restricts a person from doing whatever they want with their property. This isn't some big earth-shattering change. I'm not sure what your point is with that Carmel comment. They obviously wouldn't like it, which is why they don't allow them either.
The subject just happens to be billboards, but the issue is all about the powers of the excluded city and the layers of due process.
In Lawrence's eyes, those of us in Marion County outside Lawrence have no more right to tell them how to make zoning (or other) decisions than we have to tell Carmel or Fishers the same thing. It's a straw man argument to say that Lawrence voters get a say in City-County policy...they are what, 40-50,000 out of almost 900,000? Where Lawrence voters truly get a say is in Lawrence.
I've winced many times over the years at Lawrence's political antics, but hey, it's THEIR city. You know, all that stuff about self-determination...
ps. I agree with SE-Guy about taking care in the green equation. Think of all the vinyl that won't have to be created to make billboard signs, and all the idling diesel fumes that won't be emitted by the crews on trucks replacing them, and all the mercury-vapor light bulbs that won't be burning to light them. It would take a forensic engineer-accountant to do the math on carbon footprint either way.
Carmel delenda est.