The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

A new study funded by billboard industry group Outdoor Advertising Association of America indicates that Tulsa's new digital LED billboards are much brighter than the industry recommends.

http://www.polcouncil.org/polc2/DigitalBillboardsIanLewin.pdf
(moved from http://www.ies.org/E-Newsletter/pdf/Billboards.pdf)

The study, "Digital Billboard Recommendations and Comparisons to Conventional Billboards" by Lighting Sciences Inc. of Scottsdale AZ also illuminates flaws in the Tulsa sign ordinances on how the brightness of conventional billboards is measured. 

The study recommends LED billboard brightness around 342 Candelas per-square meter, or "Nits," for an average 10.5 x 36 foot billboard under average ambient lighting conditions.
The Tulsa Planning Commission recommended a limit of 300 Nits for the ordinance, but this was raised to 500 Nits on the urging of newly-elected Councilors Eric Gomez and Dennis Troyer before becoming law.

The paper also prescribes the method of measuring brightness of conventional billboards that differs vastly from the Tulsa sign ordinance.

The correct measurement involves standing a given distance with a footcandle meter 5 feet above the ground, aimed at an all-white billboard.
A 10.5 x 36 billboard would be measured at 200 feet distance, for example.
If the difference in illuminance between the billboard-on and billboard-off conditions is 0.3 footcandles, then the billboard luminance is in compliance. 

The current Tulsa ordinance requirement that "No such sign shall exceed an illumination of seventy (70) foot candles measured at a two (2) foot distance" is ambiguous and unenforcible.

I readily admit that the topic of light measures is beyond me on a technical level.  I do know that during the day the signs look great.  At night they can be too bright if shown with a largely white background or other bright colors.

I'm not overly fond of any visual garbage that assaults me from over 1/2 mile away, day or night.

That pretty much sums up my feelings about digital billboards.

Pretty much any billboard for me.

I especially hate when they're animated.

I remember when they first opened the South Creek turnpike extension down to BA. The church there on the bend at 91st st. (Grace fellowship I think?) had these creepy videos of peoples' eyes. So you'd drive by and there would be a 20ft face looking around on the sign. It was really distracting.

I know it's meaningless, but I am making it a point not to look at billboards now. I feel like they are a three year old that is trying harder and harder to get my attention until I finally lose my cool and yell: "What do you #$%* want?"

I fully expect that if LED billboards don't sell adds that transformer^tm signs are next.

or, I might be nutz.

Oh, im almost afraid to ask......

Interesting that people are shooting at the digital billboards. http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0309/606821.html (http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0309/606821.html) 

If you've ever driven on a country road, you know that some folks see every stationary object as a target...and I'm sure these are quite tempting. 

Obviously, it's dangerous and stupid, and nobody should be firing weapons where stray bullets could cause harm to anyone or anything... but I have to say, I understand the motivation...

My personal fantasy involves some computer hacker who goes after digital billboard networks, and turns them off.  Or a mythical Paul Bunyan with a giant chainsaw that can "clear cut" all the billboards.  (Presumably Babe the Blue Ox would drag them off to the landfill.)  Or, the greatest fantasy of all... The City of Tulsa bans all billboards and pole signs from our city limits!

Hey, it's my fantasy.  In my fantasy, they turn them off. 

On the bright side, if hackers replaced the messages with porn, we'd get more support from conservatives who would suddenly want to make billboards illegal (after they got a good, close look at the offending matter...) so that would be fine, too!

More likely, some RBN hackers will take them over and start selling ad time on them without being conspicuous enough for the owners to actually notice. Shave a few seconds off each "real" ad, and you've got time for your own that you can sell to the highest bidder. I expect we will soon be seeing ads for Viagra from Canada on our billboards.

And maybe for some "antivirus" software, too.

Looks like someone is already at it:

(http://www.textually.org/textually/archives/images/set3/2008.03.digitalbillboardga.jpg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32JgSJYpL8o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2y4lujgEVs&NR=1

That guy in the train station might just as well been yelling out "arrest me". They have security cameras all over those places. :-\

In Jenks they put up a sign at Sonic and the thing burned my eyes to drive down the road.  It was horrible, it was brighter than any sign in Vegas.  There needs to be limits on these signs because they are so distracting and annoying.

One thing Ive consistently noted when the sign industry here goes before INCOG or a BOA is they claim there are no real complaints of distracting or overlit signs, or that there are no reports of accidents related to animated or digital billboards.  I personally know the former not to be true (having filed some of those complaints), and, while there isnt consistent documentation by police of the later, you can find cases where things like casino billboards are mentioned in accident reports picked up by the local media.

' Commission member Mary Hill noted an injury accident last week on Interstate 44 near 193rd East Avenue in which a tractor-trailer rig rear-ended a street sweeper.

The truck driver maintained that he had been distracted by a Cherokee Casino sign.

"He stated that he glanced over at the sign for a second, which is kind of like a big-screen TV, and when he looked back he was right on top of the sweeper truck," Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper Sheridan O'Neal said. '
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=041109_Ne_A9_Flash9898&archive=yes (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=041109_Ne_A9_Flash9898&archive=yes)

When you see examples of that, Email your council, all of them, and CC the Planning Commission.  That way if your particular councilor is lax on the billboard people another agency has a record of the complaint.

On-premise signs like Sonic and Mathis Brothers have much less regulation than off-premise billboards, so maybe it's time to again revisit the sign ordinances (perhaps after the next election when the deck isnt so stacked).

I just received a comment from a lighting engineer who re-worked California's energy legislation, to the effect:

"First, the measurement discussed is *one* correct approach.  Second, the criterion is "not more than 0.3 footcandles" or something to that effect.  Third, the Tulsa measurement proposal - if indeed it does not specify the billboard display during the measurement - is absurd and technically incompetent."

No big surprise here.  Jenks isn't any better.  Every time I drive past the Sonic on Main, I wish I could go inside and turn the sign switch to the "OFF POSITION".

More info, please.  What does "if it does not specify the billboard display during the measurement" mean?

I absolutely believe our billboards are too bright.  They are also too close together.

I recently drove east on I-44 and I-244 at night, which convinced me that the spacing between billboards is MUCH too short.  (1,200 feet between billboards on the same side of the highway.)  This basically equals 2 billboards every quarter mile (one on each side of the highway), which is 2 every 10 seconds if you're going about 70.  Since the digital displays change every 8 seconds, it's like passing 4 billboards every 10 seconds (b/c you look up to see what just changed).  

This was especially apparent when I drove through a construction zone at night.  I was trying to focus on detour signs, barrels, exit signs, merging traffic...but the brightest thing on the road were all the digital billboards.  And even though I was TRYING to ignore them, they kept causing me to look up.  Their brightness made it significantly harder to see the critical signs and roadway hazards that were NOT lit up like Vegas.  (Try to focus on something in dim light with a flashlight shining in your eyes.)  Our digital billboards are so bright, they're visible from over a mile away, which makes them even more intrusive and annoying.

Digital billboards are not safe.  And the more we allow in Tulsa, the more we're going to realize this.

We need to double or triple the distance between signs; eliminate the language that allows signs on both sides of the road to be calculated independently from each other; require images to remain static for at least twice as long (16 seconds instead of 8...better yet, one minute per image); and re-evaluate the brightness that's allowed.

Billboard companies are parasites in the public right of way.  They couldn't exist without the billions of tax dollars that we invest in our highways.  (Imagine a billboard in the middle of a roadless wilderness.  No advertisers would pay for it.)  In addition, they saturate our roads with signs...thus reducing the effectiveness of all business signs (hard to get your message through when there's so much clutter nobody notices it).  

Billboards aren't good for business.  Beautiful, desirable cities, with a good quality of life, are good for business.  The only ones who are getting rich from this garbage are the billboard companies.  In Tulsa, that pretty much means Lamar.  Glad we can make some billboard big-wigs in Louisiana rich.  They sure ain't doin' much for us.

To measure the maximum brightness of a billboard you would want an all-white display at 100% intensity.
The way it stands now in Tulsa is IF the city were to ever measure the brightness of a digital billboard, the display could just as easily be 18% gray or anything other than the brightest it's capable of being, making the measurement (and the ordinance) worthless.  Lamar could just dial in whatever passes the test... IF we ever tested.

The gentleman's criticism has some weight, given his pedigree:
http://resodance.com/mdi/dk_vita.html

There's a new electronic billboard on that pedestrian bridge between the Convention Center and the Doubletree downtown. It looks like it's set to remain on one image for long periods, but it sure is bright, especially with the lack of functioning streetlights in that area.

Other parts of the world are taking a serious look at excessive LED Billboard brightness, as well:

For reference, Tulsa's ordinance allows 6,500 Candella per square meter (nits) in daytime, 500 at night, exceeding both national and international standards:

EPA considers reducing LED light intensities
TAIPEI, Taiwan -- Most commercial-use LED lights in Taiwan's metropolises have exceeded the international standard for luminous intensity and may cause damage to the eye, found a survey conducted by the Cabinet-level Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) recently.

The agency is studying plans to restrict the excessive commercial LED lights that may pose as health and transport safety hazards.

The EPA conducted the poll in its latest effort to combat “light pollution,” with the survey targeting some of Taiwan's biggest metropolises including Taipei, Taichung, Tainan and Kaohsiung.

The survey found the average luminous intensity for 22 moving LED lights it polled was 1,500 Candela per square meter (cd/m2), about 1.5 times higher than the international standard of 1,000.

One of the moving LED lights it polled even had luminous intensity of 3,904.5 , or 3.9 times the international standard.

The survey also found on average, moving LED lights had average luminous intensity of 1,480.6 cd/m2, or three times the 475.5 for still LED lights and 7.5 times that for projected LED lights.

“This may cause all kinds of problems for people,” said Hsieh Yen-ju, director general of EPA's Department for Air Quality Protection and Noise Control. “Fast-changing images, flashing images and sudden changes in the contrast of images tend to detract drivers, making them more prone to accidents.”

Hsiao Hung-ching, electric and electronic engineering professor of National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, echoed Hsieh's remarks, saying lights with 1,500 cd/m2 are too bright, adding lights flashing every six to ten seconds will cause dizziness and damage to the eye.

Taiwan tends to ignore light pollution, Hsieh said, adding the EPA will hold inter-ministerial meetings to figure out whether to set a maximum for luminous intensity for commercial LED lights, and whether to force companies or storefronts based in residential areas to turn off their LED signs during night.
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2010/02/18/245008/EPA-considers.htm

Yo!  And I heard the City's Planning Commission was considering reducing digital light intensity from 6,500 nits to 5,000 during daylight and from 500 to 300 during night hours.  Guess that doesn't make you warm and fuzzy.

That is not on a current TMAPC agenda, but if it ever were to be, it would be more in line with the original proposal in place before the billboard industry took some councilors on a junket to OKC in order to persuade them to loosen the regulations. 
Were you thinking of the thread "TMAPC may soften rules for LED Billboards, signs" at http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=14863.0  ?

What is going to happen when all of our new led billboards start taking on this new feature?  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/03/steak-scented-billboard-p_n_599202.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/03/steak-scented-billboard-p_n_599202.html)

7 Most Dangerous Things To Do In Your Car
 
As you might already know, cars aren't exactly the safest way to get around. Based on miles traveled, taking the car is many times more dangerous than taking a train and several times more dangerous than an airplane or bus. Yet we still take the car, right? For convenience—and driving enjoyment, in some cases—it's unbeatable. And considering safety, there's a lot you can do to help minimize your chances of being in an accident. It's estimated, from federal data, that about 20 percent of all crashes are directly caused by some sort of distraction; that distraction can take a wide range of forms—mostly from things we're not supposed to be doing behind the wheel like eating, texting, or even putting on makeup. And if you have several somewhat distracted drivers together? That's a recipe for disaster. Keep your eyes on the road, both hands on the wheel. Here are seven things that you could do to make your time in the car even more dangerous:   

Read billboards.
This one seems relatively innocuous, but billboards can be a potentially deadly distraction. Highway signs are designed to be rapidly readable, with the same size letters, same font, and reflective material that will remain readable but not too overwhelmingly bright at night. That can't be said about billboards. Most dangerous, it's suspected by some safety experts—counter to what the ad industry insists, of course—are newer dynamic digital billboard arrays that show full-motion video—essentially attention-grabbing commercials. Some have the sort of bright, rapid movement that might be fine for younger drivers but can dazzle older, slower-reacting eyes in the dark. This one's controversial, but the best advice is keep your eyes on the road.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/marty-blog/1052246_7-most-dangerous-things-to-do-in-your-car

(http://images.thecarconnection.com/sml/digital-billboard_100308830_s.jpg)

..and your hands upon the wheel.

but there are other things I want my hands to be doing while driving...

A follow-up to the original article in this thread, from an Illinois group:

http://www.illinoislighting.org/billboards.html

Current production models of LED displays can achieve surface brightness of over 28,000 nits; this is intensely bright in the daylight, especially on overcast days. (As a comparison, the bright blue daytime sky ranges from around 5,000 to 7,000 nits in luminance.) We need to set limits for daytime sign luminance, too, and to be able to measure that performance.

The Lewin (brightness measuring) method requires manipulating the sign display, to take one reading with the sign on, and one with it off. This precludes the ability to independently measure sign luminance for code enforcement, because the sign operators will be chosing the luminance settings during the test. With a luminance meter, any sign can be checked for compliance at any time, without requiring the involvement of the sign owner/operator.

MOTION & DISTRACTION
 
Digital signs have the ability to display anything which a television or computer monitor can, including "moving images". It is obvious that a Panavision movie playing along side a highway would constitute a grossly unsafe distraction hazard for vehicle operators. The Outdoor Advertising Association of America has accepted that concept, and in its Code of Industry Practice now states that full-sized billboards should not feature animation, flashing lights, scrolling, or full-motion video. This self-imposed code of conduct is laudable, but is missing (at least) two key points.

First, they limit their suggestion to not use moving images to full-sized billboards only. It is fine with them if "street-sized" signs along the roadways in our busy towns and cities feature any sort of animation or television-like video. Apparently, they believe that roadway accidents caused by distraction only occur on highways.

Second, when one image changes to another on a sign within a person's field of view, the viewer's visual system perceives that change as motion, even though the two images themselves were "static." (This is how motion pictures operate; they present the viewer a series of static images, and the mind "sees" motion.) If there is one sign ahead of us, and it turns into another, what we perceive is a flash, and/or movement. So, paradoxically, the billboard companies say they won't operate flashing or moving billboards, but they cannot avoid those effects if they change the displayed images while we are watching. They also display ads which continue on multiple "frames," encouraging the viewer to stare at the sign for a prolonged time to see the next installment.

Burma Shave

Has anyone noticed how incredibly bright the new electronic billboard is at The Wisdom Center at 15th & Delaware? I first noticed it driving west down 15th at Harvard but from that distance, it just looked like a police car or fire truck had its lights going. I slowed down as I approached the hill and was shocked to see this sign. It's WAY too bright (brighter than most billboards I've seen except for the sign at River Spirit Casino), and I believe it violates the part of the ordinance that limits how often images change. The images change very, very quickly and I believe it's a hazard.

Patric, isn't this close to your place? And does this fall into City Council District 4?

Do marquees for event centers fall under this law?

I don't mind them. Long ago Gwen Freeman on her KFAQ talk radio show mentioned that Tulsa was going to ban those bill boards, guess not, or they changed their minds.

I would assume any outdoor electronic sign would be subject to the same ordinances, but I'm not sure.

Wisdom Center, Sonic, etc, fall under the category of on-site "Business Signs"
as opposed to "Outdoor Advertising Signs" like Lamar, Whistler. Stokely...



Go to Neighborhood Inspections at
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/reporting/advertising-sign-violations.aspx

You will have to specifically cite which (and any other applicable) section(s) when you report the violation to Neighborhood Inspections or MAC, otherwise, they wont understand your complaint. 
I dont mean for that to sound snobby, but in the past I have had inspectors dispose of complaints because they didn't understand that the complaint was about illegal operation (and not about having a construction permit).


Ordinances that apply to Billboards ("Outdoor Advertising Signs") and "Outdoor Business Signs" (located on the property of the business) are Zoning Code of the City of Tulsa, Title 42 section 1221.   
http://www.incog.org/city%20of%20tulsa%20zoning%20code/Internet%20Zoning%20Code-all%20one%20document.pdf

Section "C" is for on-premise "Business Signs"
while Section "F" is for billboards.




On-site "Business Signs":

C. General Use Conditions for Business Signs
2. Flashing signs, digital signs, changeable copy signs, running light or twinkle signs, animated signs, revolving or rotating signs or signs with movement shall be subject to the following limitations.
f. No such digital sign shall display an illuminative brightness of such intensity or brilliance that it impairs the vision or endangers the safety and welfare of any pedestrian, cyclist, or person operating a motor vehicle.
g. No such digital sign shall resemble or simulate any warning or danger signal, or any official traffic control device, sign, signal or light.



If you find out it's an electronic billboard not on the business owner's property ("Outdoor Advertising Sign") the following would apply:


G. Additional Use Conditions for Digital Outdoor Advertising Signs. In addition to the use conditions prescribed for outdoor advertising signs in subsection 1221.F., digital outdoor advertising signs shall also comply with the following use conditions:
1. Digital outdoor advertising signs shall only display a static message or messages.
2. Digital outdoor advertising signs which display more than one static message shall do so sequentially, with each static message having a dwell time of no less than eight ( 8 ) seconds and a transition time between static messages of no more than one (1) second.
3. Digital outdoor advertising signs shall not display an illuminative brightness exceeding five hundred (500) NITs at any time between one half (1/2) hour after sunset until one half (1/2) hour before sunrise or six thousand five hundred (6,500) NITs between one-half (1/2) hour before sunrise until one-half (1/2) hour after sunset.
4. Use conditions establishing the minimum dwell time and maximum illuminative brightness levels for digital outdoor advertising signs codified in subsection 1221.G. shall be subject to future modification and regulation in the exercise of the City's police powers and no vested right shall ever be created in these use conditions.
5. Digital outdoor advertising signs shall not display an illuminative brightness of such intensity or brilliance that they impair the vision or endanger the safety and welfare of any pedestrian, cyclist, or person operating a motor vehicle.
6. Digital outdoor advertising signs shall not resemble or simulate any warning or danger signal, or any official traffic control devise, sign, signal or light.
7. Digital outdoor advertising signs shall not be permited to operate unless they are equipped with:
a. a default mechanism that shall freeze the sign in one position or static message if a malfunction occurs; and
b. notwithstanding paragraph 1221.G.3., a mechanism able to automatically adjust the display's illuminative brightness according to natural ambient light conditions by means of a light detector/photo cell by which the sign's brightness shall be dimmed.


The biggest complaint is that fast strobing of LED signs can be confused for emergency vehicles' LED lights, however, I recommend you download and read all of the signs section as it may include other violations you may have overlooked. 

A small victory for patric albeit from Arizona that everyone thinks is just as crazy as Florida.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/2012/03/28/20120328brewers-st-veto-year-rejects-electronic-billboards.html (http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/2012/03/28/20120328brewers-st-veto-year-rejects-electronic-billboards.html)

YES!!! I just moved to Florence Park and turning onto 15th from Delaware at night is so hard because that sign is blinding! I quickly learned to just not go that way anymore.

For reference, Pittsburgh's sign ordinance:
http://www.pittsburghpa.gov/dcp/files/Sign_Legislation_2011-1916.pdf

Nighttime brightnesses of 100-125 Nits for areas away from the city core:
http://www.illinoislighting.org/billboards.html

You wanna see something a little to bright. You should check out Broken Arrows new scoreboard at the stadium. They could almost play the game by it's lights only.

There is a sign on 169 near 66th st N that is so bright it looks like a space is landing there when driving north from 36th st.
The sign is so bright you can barely read the ads.

Did you report it to code enforcement?
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=13198.msg232493#msg232493

Just did.

Thanks for the link.

Saw where it's getting a few more complaints:

http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Bright-billboard-blinding-drivers-in-Owasso/29IUrIiBdkW3QXvzcnojDQ.cspx
http://www.fox23.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoId=3811357&navCatId=19942

Besides over-brightness, it's essentially a TV screen on a stick, with animations and insufficient dwell time between frames.

Keep in mind, when "authorities" say it's "perfectly legal" they may only be referring to whether or not it was legally constructed, NOT legally operated.

They say its legal but have to provide tips for how to deal with them when driving by?

The City of Tulsa called me back and said its outside of their jurisdiction.

It's probably either Owasso or the county then.

This should give you an idea of the light output from this sign:

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-id5_W0Csp3Q/UIP-IFuWK7I/AAAAAAAAJZw/PRNzr4zFYTM/s640/OCT_20_2012_ejwagner_002.JPG)

Granted, that's a long exposure as you can see from the passing cars, but it lights up the trees and the RR bridge very nicely.

south or north side of the bridge?

EDIT: actually it doesn't matter..both ways it's inside Owasso's fenceline it would appear.

INCOG.

Wow

The sign is on the south side of the bridge, though it hardly matters as it's equally blinding both ways.  There's a family home just south of the sign, and it's only partially screened by trees.  It probably lights up their rooms at night.  Hopefully, they're being compensated by the sign company, otherwise there could be some midnight target practice with a pellet gun.

Apparently that family has had to put blankets over their windows.

“We have found that it is not in compliance and it is illegal,” said ODOT Spokesperson Kenna Mitchell.
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/dontaye-carter-billboard-drivers/29IUrIiBdkW3QXvzcnojDQ.cspx
She says the sign owners have a permit for the billboard but not the digital display. Mitchell also added it is illegal to have a digital display with movement. The state has given the company 90 days to get its permit and remove the movement from the display.

Excellent photo, Ed.

Great pic.

A sensor being broken makes sense but why did they have to wait to be told to do something about before trying to fixing it?

See that pole extending horizontally from the billboard? 
It's a camera that lets them see what the display looks like anytime 24/7.

Maybe that was broken the last 2 months, too.
Or not.

It was shut off when I drove by at 8:30 last night.  Perhaps ODOT did a little more than give them 90 days?

and I read the entire article and found out they shut it off to fix the sensor...  

It does remind me of the Seinfeld episode with Kenny Rogers Roasters....

I use the rods and cones line.

It's back on, and still in violation, but ODOT reportedly said they will hold the owner responsible for any crashes.

Seriously?  I really want to see proof they said that.  I want to forward that on if it's available.

We can get issued fines if our vehicle is not in compliance with the law... is the owners of this eye sore getting fines?  How about we start contacting the businesses who utilize this sign for advertising and "call them to the carpet".  I can say that I will not use the insurance agent or Owasso Collision for anything.  They had to have input into the advertising and have to know that it is in violation (animations, signs changing about every 3 seconds).  Perhaps the collision place is looking for job security? :)

I like the way you think.

I will never do business with any company that puts yard signs in medians. I sometimes get a moment to call them and remind them that they are making my neighbor hood ugly.

It was 17 minutes into Fox23's 10pm Wednesday newscast.

OK, thanks.

On my way home last night I noticed the sign was somewhat fixed.  There are no more animated screens, the delay between screens is where it should be (around 8 seconds).  It is still bright, though they did tone it down.  It does not look like it is within regulations, but it is amplified by the fact that it is in a completely dark area.  The one up on the hill next to the Smith Farm Market is or appears to be significantly dimmer.

It would be nice to find out who's regulations they are following, and who on Owasso government was saying it was "perfectly legal" all along.
For a rural setting with no city lights, it's luminance should not be much above 100 NITS (candelas per square meter) but that may not be ordained in Owasso.

Can anyone see who the owner/operator of the sign is?

Now, there's the new LED billboards on each side of the Downstream Casino on 44 that have full TV-like animation and are an insanely bright assault on turnpike traffic.  Don't tell me those are on indian land...

Court sets precedent in upholding billboard ban
http://tinyurl.com/bv3529u

Mount Laurel Township's years-long effort to preserve community character and improve traffic safety by banning the construction of billboards has paid off with a recent vindication from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.

The Court dismissed an appeal by Interstate Outdoor Advertising to reverse a September 2011 decision in U.S. District Court in New Jersey by Judge Robert Kugler, who ruled in Mount Laurel’s favor.

The entire 3rd Circuit is impacted by the case, which set a precedent in the U.S. Court of Appeals.

"Towns have constitutional authority, under the First Amendment, to prohibit billboards within their borders, if an ordinance is based on traffic safety and aesthetic concerns"


Related:
In a major setback for some billboard companies, the California Supreme Court has unanimously declined to review an L.A. court ruling that could force the city to revoke permits for video billboards and to have them removed.
http://www.kcet.org/shows/socal_connected/rawfeed/update/update-in-setback-for-billboard-company-ca-supreme-court-denies-case-review.html