1985-03-20 Regular Meeting La Porte City Council

Browse Search

• • Signs that do not meet ordinance standards have been allowed to remain for a period of time, usually over six years, specifically for the purpose of allowing sign owners and property owners leasing land to recoup the value of their invest- ment prior to removal or reconstruction. Such a procedure, called amortization, is a realistic compromise between two conflicting interests. The community, after a certain period of time, realizes its goal of traffic safety and a more visually attractive environment. At the same time, billboard owners and property owners are able to recoup their investment and are, in effect, equitably compen- sated for any loss due to regulation. Amortization permits a billboard owner to recoup his investment, and provides the owner an opportunity for a profit. TML sees no distinction between immediate removal with a cash payment, and delayed removal with extended use and revenue by the billboard owner .for a designated period of time. Neither is there a differ- ence to the owner of real property on which a sign is located, if payment is made immediately for seven years of lease payments, or if removal is delayed for seven years and thus the landowner benefits from seven years income. The principal difference in these two concepts is the savings in tax money. Amortization is a just, economical and efficient means of regulation. Cash pay- ments would inhibit a city's ability to regulate billboards and would render cities unable to respond to citizen and public concerns. LEGAL ISSUES 'Texas courts have never been reluctant to require that property owners receive full value for their property. At the same time, the courts have recognized the important regulatory role of cities. They have recognized the limited resources cities have to carry out this responsibility. The courts have carefully considered the various ways that compensation can be made and have determined amortization is just and reasonable and certainly not a taking of private property without compensation. The key to this issue is the constitutional requirement, enunciated by the Texas courts as welt as the U.S. Supreme Court, that sign and billboard regulation programs be reasonable, and if removal is required, that they allow the owner of a structure sufficient time to recoup its value. In Texas, local billboard ordinances have been upheld as being reasonable because they do meet constitutional restrictions. CONCLUSION Texans no longer live in a state where individual activities have no impact on others. Our population growth has made next door neighbors of us al.t. Cities are vital to regulating ti--e conflicting interests that urban living inevitably fosters. It is also apparent that the economic development o.f all Texas cities is increasingly dependent upon their ability to provide a viable and quality living environment. The ability of cities to use amortization as a method of regulating billboar.as is an option available to create this high quality urban environment.