Ariel Hart, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
One of the longest-running, hardest-fought political wars in Georgia returns to the battlefield Thursday: the one between billboards and trees.
Under House Bill 179,billboard owners could clear-cut state-owned trees from in front of their signs, so that drivers can better see the advertisements. The bill is expected to enter a pitched battle on the House floor Thursday, prompting legislative leaders to limit the debate to two hours.
It’s a colorful war.Ladies in green jackets and scarves – the signature attire of the Garden Club of Georgia — have swarmed the legislative committee hearings, arguing the bill will leave swaths of highway bereft of oaks, sycamores, maples and other trees that now are protected.
Heavy-hitter lobbyists swarmed back, responding that jobs and hard-earned profits are at stake.
Right now, a billboard owner can cull some trees – hardwoods with trunks under eight inches in diameter, and pines under 12 inches in diameter — from the state-owned land that lies between the road shoulder and the private property a sign sits on.But the larger, older trees are off limits, and can grow so high they obscure the advertisement.
That undercuts the billboard owner’s investment in building the sign and can cost jobs, industry representatives say. According to the Outdoor Advertising Association of Georgia, 10,000 Georgia businesses use billboards, and they employ 300,000 people.
The association can’t say how many of those jobs are endangered by the trees, said its executive director, Conner Poe. But he argues it’s only common sense that if those businesses depend on billboard advertising for customers, then when customers can’t see the ads, their business and the jobs they fund will decline.
Environmentalists say they’re not convinced jobs are at stake. Wilton Rooks, executive director of Scenic Georgia, pointed to higher unemployment in states with the highest number of billboards, Florida, Michigan and Georgia. Poe disputed there was any connection between that and billboards.
Both sides claim to be on the side of tourism.
“The fact is,outdoor advertising attracts people who are traveling through our state to stop and spend money in our state,” Poe said.
On the contrary,Georgia cities working to attract tourists “want to make sure that you’ve got a nice view leading into town, and not one that becomes pocked or scarred with trees removed for billboards,” said Jill Johnson, an environmental lobbyist.
She and other environmental advocates are concerned about a lot of things. While the bill would protect trees that are designated as historic and landmark trees, there is no state database of historic and landmark trees, they said. And it’s the arborist paid by the billboard owner who would be tasked with speaking up when a tree is more than 75 years old, they said. Poe said the arborists would do their job honestly.
Then there are the fees billboard companies pay to cut down trees. Courts have found that the billboard companies must pay back the state for the value of the trees they cut. Under the bill, the companies would be able to pay less than the value of the trees, instead taking a credit for work they do to pull down obsolete billboards elsewhere. The billboard companies note they would still pay a significant minimum amount for tree removal. The tree removal would only be along a 250-350 foot zone in front of the billboard.
The political landscape is no clearer. HB 179 flew through its subcommittee and committee hearings. The billboard industry’s lobbying firm on this issue, GeorgiaLink, has an intern with big-time connections: Matt Ralston, the son of House Speaker David Ralston. GeorgiaLink founder Trip Martin said the younger Ralston was doing no lobbying. He said he expected no advantage for the bill.
While House Speaker Pro Tempore Jan Jones said she did not want to comment on the bill this year,she added “how I’ve voted (is) pretty clear in the past.” In2009, she opposed the unsuccessful bill that was supported by the billboard industry.
She’s one of several current House leaders who did so.