Retired DOT personel wrote to say we need more trees in front of signs and not less. His rational was the ad copy you see on some signs that depict topless bars and the current site distance was sufficient for travelers to read. While I agree that it would be nice to not see topless bar ads, that is a different subject all together. How about TV, movies, video games Mr. Johnson. You and I would probably agree on some of that content as well. I wish we could censor these as well.
However, on the state right of way tree subject, the argument can be made that trees on the interstate are a safety issue. Accidents are going to happen, fatalities have and will continue. Right of way trees have and will continue to be involved in both. You remember when the DOT used to clear from fence to fence in spots where the medium was narrow.
On the issue of 250 feet being a fair distance for visibility in front of a sign, you need to consider the speed of the cars along the interstate in determining what is fair or reasonable. At 70 mph, you cover 250 feet in less than three seconds. If the sign owner is willing to pay the cost of removing trees, then I see little problem with cutting trees along the right of way.
On fairness, why can a new motel or a new entertainment theater get special permission to clear right of way trees in front of their business while others can't? But I am glad they could because it will promote tourism in NC which in turn creates new jobs. Succeed or fail, they are trying.
I have seen them use signs to advertise too. Seems reasonable that visibility of at least 5 seconds would be needed to read their message. I hope our legislators use fairness and reason when they consider this subject.
A billboard is NOT the same
A billboard is NOT the same as a movie theatres, a gas station, or any other business that the public seeks out to purchase goods and services. A billboard is a sign that may be advertising goods located in another, city, county, state or country. Not only should there be no expansion of the rights of billboard owners, the current law should be repealed. Not one publicly owned tree should be cut for any commercial advertising billboard erected to distract the traveling public.
The late William F. Buckley, Jr. once said, "Billboards are acts of aggression - like skywriting - against which the public is entitled, as a matter of privacy to be protected. If a homeowner desires to construct a huge Coca-Cola sign facing his own homestead rather than the public highway, in order to remind him, every time he looks out his window, that the time has come to pause and be refreshed, he certainly should be left free to do so. But if he wants to face the sign toward us, that is something else. . . "