Why Aren't Billboards Banned in Oakland? (Santa Barbara: crime, neighborhoods, inspection)

[CirclingLogan]

I thought this is a progressive city, not beholden to the like of Clear Channel... but all around the city (especially the greater downtown area), huge, tacky billboards mar the city scene.

Many cities and even states ban billboards; why hasn't Oakland done this?

[04kL4nD]

The city needs money. SF has them everywhere too, so I don't know why this is surprising...

[CirclingLogan]

Short-term thinking that got Oakland into the shape it's in.

[bmw335xi]

What Oakland said ^^

I personally like billboards and flashy signs etc. Maybe because my early childhood was spent in a small town, so whenever I would travel, I would see cities with these giant signs that I thought were so cool. I guess that feeling is still in me.

[sav858]

I don't really think having billboards or not would really make much of a difference with anything in Oakland aside from having less revenue.

[CirclingLogan]

Originally Posted by sav858

I don't really think having billboards or not would really make much of a difference with anything in Oakland

Except not having billboards. Like not having kids tagging up businesses, boarded up buildings, surface parking lots, freeways, etc. A lot of people avoid Oakland because upon initial inspection, its downtown can be a soberingly ugly place, which reinforces what they've heard on the local news about crime and safety. True, billboards are but one piece of the puzzle, but plenty of other cities and states have done it, not sure why we can't.

[04kL4nD]

I also don't think a lack of billboards makes a city "progressive"

If you look at bus stops in Oakland, most of them have HIV prevention ads or messages that promote health or social awareness.

Santa Barbara banned billboards and I certainly wouldn't call it a "progressive" city- more like playground for the filthy rich.

And I don't think downtown Oakland is ugly. It has a lot of really interesting architecture and is much cleaner than many downtowns in California. Old Oakland is gorgeous!

[CirclingLogan]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

I also don't think a lack of billboards makes a city "progressive"

If you look at bus stops in Oakland, most of them have HIV prevention ads or messages that promote health or social awareness.

Santa Barbara banned billboards and I certainly wouldn't call it a "progressive" city- more like playground for the filthy rich.

Fair enough... I guess that's somewhat irrelevant. Politics aside, I find billboards disastrous to the aesthetics of most cities.

And I don't think downtown Oakland is ugly. It has a lot of really interesting architecture and is much cleaner than many downtowns in California. Old Oakland is gorgeous!

DTO and the surrounding neighborhoods have amazing bones and many beautiful buildings. But, many things mitigate its aesthetics. Of course, billboards aren't the biggest issue. I'd say it goes 1) surface parking 2) empty storefronts 3) run down buildings 4) freeways 5) billboards 6) tagging

[sav858]

Originally Posted by CirclingLogan

Except not having billboards. Like not having kids tagging up businesses, boarded up buildings, surface parking lots, freeways, etc. A lot of people avoid Oakland because upon initial inspection, its downtown can be a soberingly ugly place, which reinforces what they've heard on the local news about crime and safety. True, billboards are but one piece of the puzzle, but plenty of other cities and states have done it, not sure why we can't.

I don't really think billboards are keeping people away from Oakland at all or that it really makes any sort of difference. Doesn't really keep people away or affect other CA cities either like SF, LA, and SD so I don't really see the big deal you're making with them.

[04kL4nD]

I don't mind street murals/street art, but throwing up ugly tags is definitely an eye sore. I think Oakland should have a dedicated space like in the Mission for street art, but a lot of the tagging you see isn't art, just vandalism.