This will pass. Money is all that matters. This town will look like Malden in 10 years.

Actually, Services matter. The residents of Reading are very fortunate to have access to great schools and services. These things cost money and it can't keep coming out of homeowner's pockets otherwise the families that make Reading waht it is won't be able to live here. It's the people that make the town, a billboard on the highway won't change that.

The $50,000 (at most) that this sign would raise represents 0.32% of the town's $16 million dollar budget. Compare this with the costs of this sign to the town: first, of course, the decreased property values and quality of life to ANY residence/apartment within view of this 24 hour, 365 day a year, brightly illuminated screen. Second, increase in police/fire expenses and car insurance rates. Why you ask? Because, as quite a few independent studies, done both in this country and elsewhere, have shown, these signs increase accident rates--drivers tend to look at them longer than other kinds of signs, especially at night. Common sense would tell you this, as well --is only a matter of time before these signs become, essentially, television on a stick. This long viewing time is why big advertisers like Clear Channel are pushing them so very much. But, putting it within a half mile of the on-ramps to the busiest, highest accident rate interchange in the state is just asking for more distraction and accidents. And, we citizens of Reading will pay the cost, with both increased fire/police response costs and increased car insurance rates.

I would also add,in response to Jean's comment, that although raising revenue is important, residents do not move to Reading solely because of the great schools and services. The also seem to like the look and feel of the town, perhaps they like the fact that the businesses in this town (well, with the exception of the Jordan's furniture area) have, for the most part, signage and appearance that fit in with the overall character of the town. People do not move here to live alongside Vegas-style signage looming overhead. If Reading allows this sign, how do we stop the next one, and the next one? Reading can do better to raise revenue by simplifying the permit and approval process for the real businesses and restaurants that want to open in this town. Clear Channel, the billboard owner, cares little about this town and has gone so far, in LA area, to convert regular billboards to digital ones without notice or prior approval. Luckily, a federal appeals court in CA, just last month, ordered 100 of such digital billboards removed.
If even WOBURN prohibits these billboards (see http://www.wickedlocal.com/woburn/news/x1058235447/Potential-electronic-billboard-near-Woburn-Reading-line-draws-concerns?zc_p=1#axzz2IuDS69vE), that is saying something.

These signs will be on our borders no matter what we do (unless Wilmington and Wakefield chose not to allow them as Woburn has) because Reading is located at the intersection of 2 major highways. Clear Channel is in discussions with Wakefield at this very moment to place one right on our border. Wakefield is in more financial trouble than we are. They may not look down their noses at $50,000 in guaranteed annual revenue. (That pays the base salary for a town employee.)

If some of our residents are going to end up looking at these things shouldn't we be the ones regulating the location and residential viewing angles, as well as getting the financial benefits as well?

As far as reduced property values, has there been an analysis done by any real estate firms or assessors to find out just how much property values will be affected?

Before we dismiss this out of hand, we should be dealing with all the factual information we can gather.

Also, this is a zoning change. A special permit must be granted still be granted by the ZBA. Also, if the permit is granted, the Board of Selectmen can still regulate it through the contract signed with Clear Channel.

This is a great idea for the area near the Mobil. It will generate a good deal of money from the hosting fee. Unfortunately, it might be a small eyesore for a few residents, but other residents currently endure a few eyesores in their neighborhoods. (Jordan's, Main Street businesses near Stoneham) M, could you please link to these independent studies from here and abroad.

With all of the housing projects recently built, the town is already becoming an eyesore. If Reading looked like it does now 15 years ago, I would never have moved here.

Dawn, here are the links. It may require two posts.
First the traffic safety links.I sent a letter to the Town Planner yesterday with this information, as well. The studies I am finding state that such digital billboards (DBBs) remain a significant source of driver distraction, especially at night. In fact, JUST LAST WEEK, a national Transportation Conference met, in this country to hear (among other things) 3 different studies on the effect of digital billboards on driver safety, including one from Sweden that concluded Digital Billboards hold the gazes of drivers far longer than other types of signs, and this study resulted in Sweden BANNING such signs. See http://fleetowner.com/safety/digital-billboards-dangerously-distracting-drivers-says-new-study and http://ohsonline.com/articles/2013/01/07/study-finds-digital-billboards-distract-drivers.aspx

There is a literature review at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/elecbbrd/chap2.htm, which notes that Wisconsin, and Minnesota have conducted studies indicating that such electronic signs increase crashes.
See also study by National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) at http://www.azmag.gov/Documents/pdf/cms.resource/NCHRP_Digital_Billboard_Report70216.pdf . This final report, entitled, “Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs, ” concludes that research supports that digital billboards can create driver safety issues.

If you google the terms "swedish study" and digital billboards, you will see countless links to that study - all from January 2013, as this is a "hot issue" in the traffic safety world. For balance, here's a link to a 2010 NY Times article that presents both sides of the issue, noting studies funded by billboard industry of course find them not a distraction, and also noting the many flaws in those studies. This article also cites some past studies: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/technology/02billboard.html?pagewanted=all

Some more links of interest:
First, a small study indicating that billboards in a town actually DECREASE economic prosperity in the town:
See http://www.scenic.org/blog/134-new-study-shows-billboards-hurt-nearby-property-values

Electronic billboards present significant noise issues to abutters from the cooling fans, see a video depicting this noise http://i.feedtacoma.com/erik/digital-billboards-are-not-only/

Karl, I appreciate your perspective that better we get the $ than our neighbors, but my point is that the intersection of two major highways is the very worst place to put THIS kind of distracting signage. Note that the similar signs in Stoneham and Medford, while next to 93, are not adjacent to "the busiest and most dangerous intersection in the state) (as Mass DOT termed it when they tried, unsuccessfully, to ram the interchange and 100+ eminent domain takings on us 10 years ago).

I recently saw these all pop up on 93 in Somerville/Boston area. I don't think the neighbors had much of a voice!

Erecting these monstrous signs that detract from the immediate area, detract from the town's image, possibly create driving hazards all for a few pennies (yes, $50K in context of town budget is a few pennies!) is worse than absurd. It would be idiotic and inane. If the town is in such need of $50K I'd rather pay higher taxes.

Why would a sign in reading preclude another town from putting up their own sign on our border? We can't control what other towns do, a bad idea is a bad idea.

Karl,
How about we pilot this sign in your yard for 6 months and you can then let us know if it is worth $50,000. Tell us how low your property value went, along with your neighbors values. I grew up in Somerville, I know what bright lights and noisy city life is like and this is why I moved to Reading. All kidding aside, we all work really hard and pay lots of money to live in this wonderful town of ours. It would have been a lot less expensive if my family and I had moved to Woburn, Stoneham, Willimgton or Wakefield, but I wanted to give my family a little bit better school system, sports programs, etc. I don't want to put down the above cities, because I lived in one and have family and friends that live in all of them now, but I'm trying to make a point.
This is something that I wouldn't want anywhere in Reading and feel that we can come up with a better way to raise revenue.
Respectfully
John

Clarification to the above article. The Finance Committee did not vote to recommend the zoning change. Their jurisdiction covers only the financial aspects of warrant articles. Town Meeting as a whole must decide if a Zoning change is warranted.

Next step? Re-visit the the 128-93 fly over ramps..

Word is the possibility of the electronic billboard is dead. It's my understanding that ClearChannel is pulling out of the negotiations due to community pressure to do so.

Back to the search for non-tax based recurring revenue.

Karl - if you're not kidding, you made my day!

I realize that Brown is quite a common last name but wanted to state that "this Dawn Brown" is against the billboard.

This is all so typical of Karl Weld, if this billboard was anywhere near his home, he'd be crying bloody murder. See with K. Weld it all comes down to how things relate to K. Weld. Take a peek at his stand on the historic home demo by-law or how he rails against public employees and what they do and don't receive in relation to him and his private sector job. he is your typical NIMBY/Teabagger (dangerous combo). Threatens to run for Selectman and then slithers away after a candidate that would kick his rear emerges. Karl Weld is a big part of what is wrong in this town, he is self-centered and anti- union/public sector but denies it when exposed for being the fraud that he is. Let's propose an electronic billboard for Highland St. BTW the next time Karl speaks at Town Meeting will be his first time.

>>> between $25,000 and $50,000 a year, according to the article background - is insignificant

Just sayin', you know, if it's "insignificant"? It's spelled I-N-T-O-R...

Aww shucks John, there you've gone and hurt my feelings. The electronic billboard is a terrible idea for all of the reasons sited above by many folks who will be directly impacted. My you and your fellow RRTC members have such thin skin, you must all still be reeling from what happened back in Nov!!!!

I cannot fault residents and the Board of Selectmen for exploring ways to raise revenue to help close funding gaps; however, this particular idea is not what is best for Reading. Reading is a beautiful, family-oriented, residential community. It's a mid-sized town with a small-town feel, and that small-town feel is an essential ingredient to the character of its residents. These digital billboards are designed to be bright, vibrant, and distracting. In order to reach its audience, this electronic billboard will become the brightest object on the landscape, and it will dominate the nighttime sky and fundamentally change the character of this part of Reading. We also want to be good neighbors with Woburn and respond in kind to its good will pledge not to build signs that might adversely affect our Town. There are better ways to achieve our revenue goals without compromising our small-town character and bonne volonté with our neighbors. Let's fill our empty business space downtown before we look toward electronic billboards as our answer.

As a first-time homeowner and newcomer to Reading, I'm shocked and saddened that this is a possibility. I realize the naivete of what I'm asking, but how can the town be willing to harm (at least some of, if not all) its residents for the perceived good of the whole? Why would people continue to move here if they felt that the town was more concerned with revenue than protecting its citizens? As many posters have pointed out, there are other ways to raise money for the town. Why not saddle all the residents with the cost, rather than essentially take it out of the pockets of those whose property values would be impacted?

I don't need a study to tell me the value of my house will go down if an electronic sign emerges over the roof of my neighbor's house. It's scary to think that, as my husband and I begin our married life here with plans to grow a family, we could instantly be underwater on the house we just purchased, due to a decision on this sign.

Putting aside the property value discussion, authorizing this sign would pave the way for signs like this all over town, and there goes the quaint New England draw of Reading.

If there's one good thing coming out of this, it has galvanized one young lady to take an interest in town politics!

Money for the town - put this to the side for a minute. Close your eyes imagine this 8 plus story sign at the end of your road in day light- now think 10pm -it is brighter than ever-at the end of your road, street, Ave---it is ment to be seen- it is noticed - people pay to advertise here- it is noticed, it does what a good ad does- it gets in your face- and you can not shake it. Open your eyes- it is still there ..at the end of your street..do you really want it?

AS others have pointed out, we can't stop Wakefield from putting them up, TOO. From what I understand the state law allows up to 6 per mile (I've also seen an article describing the new Mass Law on this as the most lax law in the country). I would imagine clear channel is seeking as many as possible. The folks in Wakefield, especially around Lake Q, are already dealing with the light pollution from the Jordan's Furniture stores, which pretty much dominates the Lake view in the evening. They had no control over that, they got "the view without any of the control," too.
Where in Wakefield is there supposed to be a sign? The only borders I can think of are North Ave and 129, where Wakefield has residential immediately abutting the highway. Can't imagine their residents wouldn't protest as we do.

I guess we now know how the good folks of Wakefield (the lake area) felt when the monstrosity known as "Jordans" moved in and illuminated itself so. Electronic signs will be installed, or not, and taxes will continue to rise, and town employees hired. It is the circle of life!!!

I can't believe the hue and cry this has generated. I think there are more important things to worry about than getting all worked up over a billboard. I would've supported this as I'm not one to turn down increased non-tax revenue, but I recognize the opposition and defer to what seems to be the majority on the issue. This is hardly an issue which warrants mud slinging...which is both ugly and a huge overreaction.