Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Witness to Power, or One More Reason To Hate LBJ (LeBron James Edition)
Reader
John-David Filing points to the sort of stupid battle that federal
officials seemingly never tire of fighting (even though there's a
war on):
The federal government wants Ohio to take down a giant Cavs sign featuring LeBron James...
Crews posted a huge Nike "We Are All Witnesses" sign on the eastern face of the Sherwin Williams building, but federal officials spotted the sign at a recent convention.
They said it violates a highway beatification act passed during the Johnson Administration.
Maybe the feds are Spurs supporters (or sore Pistons fans). Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland defends the billboard, saying, ""We are determined to do everything to make sure that this city has the opportunity to continue to enjoy this beautiful display of commercial art."
Hey, hey LBJ, how many billboards did you kill today? At the signing of 1965's Highway Beautification Act, which regulated billboards and other signage on federal roads, the man who dropped tons of napalm on Vietnam recalled a drive home from the hospital on The George Washingtion Parkway:
I saw Nature at its purest. The dogwoods had turned red. The maple leaves were scarlet and gold . . . . And not one foot of it was marred by a single unsightly man-made obstruction--no advertising signs, no junkyards. Well, doctors could prescribe no better medicine for me.
Nature at its purest--except for the road he was driving on.
Burma Shave: Never forget!
|6.7.07 @ 10:16AM|#
That's the same bullshit excuse they used to squash one of the
Columbus Crew's most effective (and cheap) marketing devices.
Their stadium lies directly off I-71, at a curve, and is especially
visible to southbound traffic. You can see the stadium as you curl
around it. Well, they used to have a huge sign, right outside the
north stand that had the upcoming schedule. It was perfect, cheap
marketing and highly informative.
Then, after a year or so ODOT (and presumably the Feds) told them
to take it down, citing the Beautification Act and safety
concerns.
Of course now there's something of a resurrection of the idea, but
I think it's actually a big sign draped on the stadium itself. Must
be some technicality. Either that or they said "fuck ODOT".
Oh, and Come on Cavs!!
|6.7.07 @ 10:21AM|#
If "Le" and "Bron" are considered seperately (why the hell not?), then LeBron James is also "LBJ." Just sayin'.
VM|6.7.07 @ 10:23AM|#
Mein Gott.
ARGH!
Go Cavs.
(had it been an ONDCP billboard, does anybody think it'd be
pressured off? ha ha)
|6.7.07 @ 10:25AM|#
Mr. Gillepse fails to really let us know if the ad does violate
the Highway Beautification Act, even at least in his opinion.
Instead, his point seems to be "hey, the government's enforcing a
law again."
Christopher Monnier|6.7.07 @ 10:29AM|#
> Instead, his point seems to be "hey, the government's
enforcing a law again."
The implicit point is to illustrate how stupid this law is.
|6.7.07 @ 10:30AM|#
Timon19,
There's another article on this that suggests that it was some ODOT
tool that started this whole stink. I should have sent both links
in, but didn't.
|6.7.07 @ 10:31AM|#
Oh, and the remedy used by the Feds could be withholding 10% of Ohio's highway money, which is like $130 million. For a sign on the side of a building that has been up at least 2 years.
|6.7.07 @ 10:31AM|#
I thought that the Highway Beautification Act was only intended to prevent LBJ's daughters from riding in convertibles?
VM|6.7.07 @ 10:32AM|#
"Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland said there are exceptions and on
Wednesday he defended the sign in person.
"We are determined to do everything to make sure that this city has
the opportunity to continue to enjoy this beautiful display of
commercial art," said Strickland."
It sounds as though what we have hier is failure to
communicate...
|6.7.07 @ 10:37AM|#
"They said it violates a highway beatification act passed
during the Johnson Administration."
There must have been bribes from the Pope to get that law
passed.
Christopher Monnier|6.7.07 @ 10:37AM|#
> "We are determined to do everything to make sure that
this city has the opportunity to continue to enjoy this beautiful
display of commercial art," said Strickland."
What bothers me about this statement is that it seems (isn't it
obvious?) that the only reason Strickland is defending the
"commercial art" is because LeBron James is featured. What if the
billboard was a big advertisement for South Park or American
Idol?
|6.7.07 @ 10:40AM|#
The implicit point is to illustrate how stupid this law
is.
I suppose. That seems to be the default Reason position on all
laws.
I almost wonder if Mr. Gillepse drives down the interstate in rural
areas fuming over the government's denying him the right to look at
eyesores.
BTS|6.7.07 @ 10:41AM|#
At the risk of belaboring Lamar's point:
Saint I-70! or perhaps Intersaint 70
|6.7.07 @ 10:49AM|#
Chris S.,
That is a very common abbreviation for LeBron.
Dan T.,
This sign is on a building beside an extremely un-pretty, elevated,
crumbling highway just south of downtown. It ain't an eyesore by
any means. The building that it's on IS an eyesore and is in
violation of the law by that standard. The sign improves the view
immensely.
|6.7.07 @ 10:51AM|#
Dan,
I've been playing around with the idea of teaching a class on
rhetoric. I am wondering if I could use your posts as examples? The
logical fallacies leap out so clearly that I am confident they
would make a wonderful teaching tool.
|6.7.07 @ 10:52AM|#
That seems to be the default Reason position on all
laws.
No. Just the stupid ones. Of which there's no shortage, thus
resulting in an endless stream of snarky commentary.
|6.7.07 @ 11:02AM|#
"That seems to be the default Reason position on all
laws."
And quite properly so.
|6.7.07 @ 11:02AM|#
Dan T.,
This sign is on a building beside an extremely un-pretty, elevated,
crumbling highway just south of downtown. It ain't an eyesore by
any means. The building that it's on IS an eyesore and is in
violation of the law by that standard. The sign improves the view
immensely.
That very well may be the case, and that's why I think the point
would have been better made if Nick had actually bothered to look
into whether or not this particular work of Commercial Art violated
the law.
Instead, all we get is his opinion that it's stupid not to want a
bunch of tacky billboards all over the place.
LarryA|6.7.07 @ 11:02AM|#
I almost wonder if Mr. Gillepse drives down the interstate
in rural areas fuming over the government's denying him the right
to look at eyesores.
Every time I hear about LBJ's "beautification" law I fondly
remember when you could drive across a state and know which
restauraunts, motels, and gas stations were available at which
exits.
Now we taxpayers fund the dinky signs the Highway Departments puts
up just past the point where you can safely make the exit.
MattXIV|6.7.07 @ 11:05AM|#
I suppose. That seems to be the default Reason position on all laws.
How bizarre! It's like they're a bunch of libertarians or
something...
Think Billions|6.7.07 @ 11:10AM|#
Great reasons (no pun intended) and analysis. Our analysis
approaches this from a monetary perspective. Let us know your
thoughts! Thanks.
The accelerated growth curve of LeBron is amazing.
Michael Jordon, Warren Buffett and half the world want to hang and
praise LeBron.
It's going to be an amazing NBA Championship and next couple of
years for him.
LeBron James: Witness
a (future) Billionaire
|6.7.07 @ 11:11AM|#
What the heck are the Feds doing worrying about this? It would seem that beauty, being a subjective assessment, should be left to the local communities to decide. At a minimum, the feds should decline to pursue any cases that aren't initiated by the locals.
|6.7.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Lamar,
They're pandering to guys like Dan T, who want other people to be
forced to make them happy.
The billboard is on a building owned by someone. If it disturbs the
road owner (the Federal Govt) then the road owner is welcome to
construct some kind of wall to block the view of the sign, or he
could offer money to the owner of the billboard to take it
down.
But this would require the road owner to pay for his or her tastes,
and when the owner is the government they can't stand to do this.
Career thieves and murderers have trouble playing nicely with
others.
So rather than coming up with a peaceful solution, they whip out
the guns.
Of course, this makes Dan T. happy because today the guys with guns
agree with his aesthetics. He doesn't worry that tomorrow the guns
could be turned on him, since he is convinced that he and his
fellow travelers will always control the guns.
|6.7.07 @ 11:33AM|#
As a 'the roads should be privatized' libertarian extremist, I'm ashamed to say, I like driving the interstates for the uninterrupted views. Billboards blocking the view of trees always upset me, especially the ones for Jesus. If they're going to enforce the 1965 Highway Beautification Act, I wish they'd start here in Missouri
|6.7.07 @ 11:45AM|#
Well, if the roads were privatized, I can easily see some road
owners offering scenic drives. Of course, they would probably
charge a premium for the luxury, since they would either have to
purchase all the land visible from the road, or pay the people who
owned the visible land to keep from ruining the scenery.
I personally would pay the premium, since I too hate
billboards.
Rhywun|6.7.07 @ 11:58AM|#
I don't drive, but don't you folks find giant signs vying for
your attention to be distracting? I would think on safety issues
alone, such a laws would be a gimmie.
I fondly remember when you could drive across a state and know
which restauraunts, motels, and gas stations were available at
which exits.
I don't know much about this law or what it supposedly
accomplished, but every single expressway I've ever ridden on has
been chock-a-block billboards, even in rural areas within a few
miles of an exit. And at every exit, there is a forest of giant
fast-food and hotel signs. Did LBJ's law not apply to New York
State?!
|6.7.07 @ 12:15PM|#
I almost wonder if Mr. Gillepse drives down the interstate
in rural areas fuming over the government's denying him the right
to look at eyesores.
Um, an interstate highway *IS* an eyesore! Mr. Gillepse is driving
down the interstate fuming because he doesn't know which exit has a
gas station for him to take a piss.
I don't know much about this law or what it supposedly
accomplished, but every single expressway I've ever ridden on has
been chock-a-block billboards, even in rural areas within a few
miles of an exit. And at every exit, there is a forest of giant
fast-food and hotel signs. Did LBJ's law not apply to New York
State?!
The law is only enforced if the person on the billboard is a "scary
black man".
|6.7.07 @ 12:18PM|#
They're pandering to guys like Dan T, who want other people
to be forced to make them happy.
The billboard is on a building owned by someone. If it disturbs the
road owner (the Federal Govt) then the road owner is welcome to
construct some kind of wall to block the view of the sign, or he
could offer money to the owner of the billboard to take it
down.
But this would require the road owner to pay for his or her tastes,
and when the owner is the government they can't stand to do this.
Career thieves and murderers have trouble playing nicely with
others.
So rather than coming up with a peaceful solution, they whip out
the guns.
Of course, this makes Dan T. happy because today the guys with guns
agree with his aesthetics. He doesn't worry that tomorrow the guns
could be turned on him, since he is convinced that he and his
fellow travelers will always control the guns.
Or perhaps somebody could just tear down the offending billboard.
But then the guys with guns would come after him.
Mike Laursen|6.7.07 @ 12:19PM|#
Every time I hear about LBJ's "beautification" law I fondly
remember when you could drive across a state and know which
restauraunts, motels, and gas stations were available at which
exits.
I hear ya. As a kid, reading all the billboards on the road from
Los Angeles to Las Vegas kept me entertained. And probably
corrupted my young, impressionable brain. Then one year, the only
interesting sign along the whole route was the one for Zzyzx
Road.
|6.7.07 @ 12:19PM|#
That is a very common abbreviation for LeBron.
Damn, I guess that makes me more than fashionably late to the
obvious party.
|6.7.07 @ 12:40PM|#
And at every exit, there is a forest of giant fast-food and
hotel signs. Did LBJ's law not apply to New York State?!
What part of New York State are you talking about? I have NEVER
seen those towering 200' tall McDonald's/Wendy's/Exxon/etc. signs
anywhere in New York State. The only Billboards I know of are few
and far between, or strictly in more urban areas. There are laws
against sign height and all that business in much of New York,
because we are the champions of laws.
Honestly, have you ever even been here?
Wellington|6.7.07 @ 12:50PM|#
Or perhaps somebody could just tear down the offending
billboard. But then the guys with guns would come after
him.
It's only "offensive" because the law says it's offensive. Don't
you get it yet?
|6.7.07 @ 1:06PM|#
To reiterate, that highway is anything but rural and the scenery
anything but beautiful. Trust me, Cleveland's hero's image is
greatly enhancing the area.
And if it's the same building that I remember driving past every
single trip into downtown from parts south, it's had one big sign
or another on it continuously for at least 29 years.
Why now?
Rhywun|6.7.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Reinmoose,
I've lived in NYS for 38 years except a brief stint in Germany, and
I've been from one end of the Thruway to the other many times.
Maybe you're a good driver and not seeing the signs :)
But trust me, they're there.
|6.7.07 @ 2:14PM|#
Timon19,
I'm not sure if it's the same building, but didn't there used to be
a radio station ad (maybe for WERE-1300) about the same size
painted on the entire side of a building?
D.A. Ridgely|6.7.07 @ 2:19PM|#
A "highway beatification act passed during the Johnson
Administration"?
How many miracles does the highway have to perform to qualify for
canonization?
|6.7.07 @ 2:20PM|#
I'm pertty sure LBJ never dropped as much as a gram of napalm on Vietnam... I'm just saying...
|6.7.07 @ 3:07PM|#
I'm pretty sure J. Edna Hoover never personally installed an illegal wire-tap....I'm just saying...
TallDave|6.7.07 @ 3:11PM|#
a highway beatification act
I didn't know asphalt could be granted sainthood.
|6.7.07 @ 3:13PM|#
jf,
Possibly. It's on the I-77 approach to downtown, right, just before
the last two exits before I-77 ends its journey from Columbia,
SC?
TallDave|6.7.07 @ 3:15PM|#
the man who dropped tons of napalm on Vietnam
Funny, no one complains much about the firebombing of North Korea,
Dresden or Tokyo.
I do love my Samsung 61" DLP and Pioneer receiver, though. Makes
you wonder what South Vietnam could have been today.
|6.7.07 @ 5:28PM|#
Timon19,
Yeah. The more i think about it, though, I don't think it's the
same building. I mostly remember a blue building with no windows on
one side with this painting for WERE - "The Radio Home of the
Cleveland Browns" (or some such thing) painted on the entire
highway-facing side.
|6.7.07 @ 7:43PM|#
If my memory serves correctly, the final few miles or so of I-77
have a magnificent view of the blast furnaces of what used to be
LTV Steel.
Trust me, the billboard is probably less of an eyesore than much of
the view around it.
|6.8.07 @ 1:25AM|#
tarran,
The view on the way in is only surpassed by the smell on the way
out (especially on cool, damp nights) after Tribe games.
Combination of refinery, steel mills, landfills and water treatment
facilities.
An olfactory feast.
jf,
I picked up the PD today and I think the building they're talking
about is not the same one I'm thinking of.
The Wine Commonsewer|6.8.07 @ 1:45AM|#
LBJ? as smart ass kids we used to say that meant long blow job. Not that we sixth graders had any idea what that actually meant.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245