Ugly highway billboards damage state's image, beauty

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • silas brill Heber, UT
    May 11, 2012 7:13 a.m.

    I agree. Billboards should come down.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 10, 2012 8:11 p.m.

    And I thought that businesses would do the right thing without the government telling them what to do.

    Ok, not really.

    There are municipalities that limit billboards. And it is a much cleaner look.

    But, it does take govt regulations.

  • @Charles the greater outdoors, UT
    May 10, 2012 1:08 p.m.

    @Redshirt: you are missing the boat on this one. Billboards should go.

    Also, how are billboards any different that any other distraction that people complain about? Billboards take your eyes off the road so it's a distraction, especially the ones that change over.....

  • jmort SLO, CA
    May 9, 2012 3:39 p.m.

    I visited your state recently, had the occasion to drive from SLC to Provo and back, and personally experienced the "barrage of billboards" lining I15.

    I can understand the (valid) arguments for and against the signs, but I will tell you that they really give your state a "trashy" "low class" feel. I travel a lot, and can't think of another place with such a high concentration of "in your face" billboards.

    You are competing with ski destinations around the globe for visitors; your omnipresent billboards can't be helping.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 9, 2012 2:04 p.m.

    To "Counter Intelligence" and "LDS Liberal" thanks for your responses. Basically you both have said the same thing. It isn't that you don't like big ugly signs, it is that you don't like businesses advertising in a way that offends you.

    You both show your hypocrisy in admitting that having signs paid for by the government to advertise local businesses that are not adjacent to the freeway is ok, while a private company doing the same thing is not ok.

    For example, there are signs along I-15 for hospitals that display current wait times, private businesses own and operate those signs, yet the information that is provided is valueable to a person in an emergency and is in need of a hospital.

    So, tell us why a billboard that is purchased and owned by a private company is bad, and a roadside sign that is purchased and owned by the government is ok. Both advertise businesses, and are intended to direct people to goods and services they may need.

    To summarize your statements. The only difference is size, and ownership. So again, why are billboards so wrong?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 9, 2012 1:32 p.m.

    Deep Space 9, Ut
    Can you antibillboard people tell me the difference between the billboards and the large business signs that line the freeway?

    ...what about the smaller bluesigns along freeways that list fastfood, gas, and hotels?
    12:49 p.m. May 9, 2012

    Why do I bother to waste my time?....

    One identifies a business's location i.e., the name of the business on the building itself. From the ancient Greeks when people would literally "Hang a Shingle" with words or symbols to inform passersby know who in town did what and where.

    The other [billboard] is a sign, posted far and away from the business location for the express purpose of drawing attention to, re-directing, or attempting to arouse or entice a sale of one's product or service.


    The blue signs at freeway exits are public awareness signs to inform travels of services available at THAT exit - Food, Shelter, & Gas. They have strict size and shape guidelines, are co-located and grouped together in a neat and orderly fashion -- to inform and NOT distract.

    Not even the same thing.

    But you already know that, you are just arguing for argument's sake.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 9, 2012 12:49 p.m.

    Can one of you anti-billboard people tell me what the difference is between the billboards lining the freeways and the large business signs that line the freeway?

    They both advertise a business, and are typically built on private land.

    Also, if billboards are wrong because they are unwanted advertisements that you cannot avoid, what about the smaller blue signs along the freeways that list local fast food, gas stations, and hotels? They accomplish the same thing, yet you have no problem with that.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    May 9, 2012 12:42 p.m.

    Amen to this letter! Get rid of billboards, and let the economics fall where they may. The valley will be more beautiful, will get more visitors, will have a better reputation, will be a more pleasant place to live.

    What's not to like?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 9, 2012 11:18 a.m.

    Deep Space 9, Ut
    To "Counter Intelligence" lets go with your plan. Then, once we have eliminated the evil billboards….
    It will be glorious, just like in the former USSR.

    Good morning RedShirt.
    Looks like your All-or-Nothing Extremism is once again set on Maximum….

    Elimination of Billboards is Salt Lake City leads America to become the former USSR?

    Seriously, your leaps of outer-extremism are astounding to say the least.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 9, 2012 10:59 a.m.

    Salt Lake looks like Tiajuana Mexico or Mumbai, India with all the tacky billboards.

    If someone wants a breast augmentation, or a Lap-Dance – They can find that without needing ½ dozen signs up and down the inter-state telling them where to find it.

    Billboards tell me exactly who NOT to patronize.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 9, 2012 10:46 a.m.

    Deep Space 9, Ut

    Seems like your counter argument is always to take things to the horrible extreme. If some one says they want to hop, you have them bumping into the Moon.

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    May 9, 2012 10:23 a.m.

    Billboards are really just a tacky, bush-league way to advertise -- there is something inherently "Las Vegas-esque" about them.

    In short, they are little more than another example of the corporatocracy's ongoing quest to exploit the community for one more buck . . .

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 9, 2012 9:47 a.m.

    To "Counter Intelligence" lets go with your plan. Then, once we have eliminated the evil billboards, we can get rid of the next most intrusive form of advertising. We will be set up to eliminate those big signs that stores put on their building that advertise their names and sometimes include information on sales or contact information for businesses. We can then to make it so that we don't have to see those evil signs advertising businesses on the fronts of buildings, we can require that the outside of the store simply state what they sell, such as Food, Bread, Meat, Tires, Travel, or whatever they sell. It will be glorious, just like in the former USSR.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 9, 2012 8:48 a.m.

    Advertising often performs a useful and necessary service to the consumers of America, and that includes most of us. However, too much of a good thing is, just as often, as much pain as benefit.

    If rules prevent commercial advertising in the public square, then we must ask who owns the air above private property, who owns the sky and who owns the view.

    Years ago we had a great view of the valley. Then a chicken place erected a huge bucket advertising their store and damaging our view. Later our view is gone as a large medical building took the place of the bucket.

    In the vein of private property and my home is my castle, does someone have the right to hop my property line and invade my life with visual trespass?

    In the case of freedom, does one persons freedom to do as he pleases on and above his own property exceed my freedom to not be pestered by commercials?

    I think we need to have this discussion before the technology reaches the point where advertising can project it’s message on the sky itself or even the side of a mountain.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    May 9, 2012 8:05 a.m.

    The Billboard companies lobby like crazy and get what they want.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    May 9, 2012 8:02 a.m.

    Thanks your repub legislators. Billboards are their babies.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    May 9, 2012 7:36 a.m.

    This letter is correct in its condemnation of these billboards for their unattractiveness. However, it does not go far enough.

    To put it simply, these billboards do not reflect the values of the community. By and large, these ads for breast augmentation and liposuction dominate the billboards and create the impression that this is a community obsessed with wanton sexuality.

    These billboards must go. The fact that they make a minor contribution to the economy is irrelevant. Do we really want to sell the soul of this community for thirty pieces of silver?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    May 9, 2012 6:32 a.m.

    Advertising is grease for the economy. It helps it to get going and then run.

    Oil wells aren't as beautiful as trees, but I wouldn't want to do without them. Likewise with forms of advertising including billboards.