Comments on: Community group speaks out against billboards in Oakland Army base deal

By: Sierra

Sierra — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 16:30:10 +0000

those billboards are like too many cell phone conversations when driving, they distract and numb people, keep us from paying attention to what we’re doing, from what our REAL environment is. We’re already dunned by too many CRT screens, laptops, cell phones, TV screens, and a constant barrage of advertising from morning to night. Enough already. Raise city funds by putting people to work in projects that beautify and make our city more live-able, a better place to spend time with one another, public works that bring returns (edible gardens, i.e.) rather than spend more money of what advertisers flog us with.

By: Valerie Winemiller

Valerie Winemiller — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 23:14:52 +0000

We have become way too accepting of the intrusion of the commercial into our public commons (with the lion’s share of benefits to private individuals).

By: Valerie Winemiller

Valerie Winemiller — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 23:03:39 +0000

I know Karen Hester and she does not live in the hills. That’s the publicly accessible view from the public roads and parks. We live in one of the most beautiful urban areas in the world, we’re trying to encourage more visitors and conventions, and we’re giving out 66-year leases for $1M/year revenue? I don’t care what the message is. No! I agree that the LED ones are a driving safety hazard; I find them blinding adn the motion in the corner of the eye is distracting. Both kinds are a hazard for wildlife, the Audubon Society says–birds and wildlife that are normally safely hidden from predators in the dark are vulnerable when billboards light their habitat–in this case the bay shore area, which has a surprising amount of wildlife.

By: copykate

copykate — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:26:09 +0000

“But Hester argues that the city and Oakland residents are not receiving a good deal in exchange for what they are giving up.” It isn’t at all clear to me what Hester thinks is being sacrificed. The land in question is currently wasteland and too toxic to farm. Heaven knows the city needs the money! It kind of sounds like the billboards will be blocking her nice view, since she complains that they can be seen from the hills.

By: livegreen

livegreen — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 01:32:34 +0000

I agree the billboards are too bright. However I also agree the City needs to consider using them for revenue. With limitations on both the brightness & moderate numbers.

I’d further propose: One above the Caldecott Tunnel (& other conjeste residential areas) which occasionally flash positive adds for Oakland like:
–”Here’s Art Murmur!”, “Farmers Market this Saturday!” and other community events;
–”If you lived here, you’d already be Home…Not stuck in traffic!”
–& “Three schools near here get 850+ API scores!”

Occasional positive vibes about Oakland wouldn’t cost anything extra and could be terms for getting the contract!

By: Cynthia Gorney

Cynthia Gorney — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 23:18:02 +0000

Interesting question! Oakland North is considering a more in-depth follow-up on billboards–liabilities or useful, for revenue-strapped cities?–with questions like this in mind. Please toss out any other questions you have, or observations you’d like to make about urban billboards in general.

By: DD

DD — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:09:48 +0000

I am disappointed that yet another eyesore is being forced on West Oakland. But also, I think the illuminated billboards are a safety hazard. They are constantly flashing and changing, which is very distracting, and they ruin your night vision for a mile or two. I would not be surprised if they contribute to higher accident rates. Does anyone know of a study on the safety impacts?