Voters send anti-billboard message

2011-06-07T22:42:00Z 2012-10-29T13:28:14Z Voters send anti-billboard messageBarbara Soderlin Journal staff Rapid City Journal
June 07, 2011 10:42 pm  • 

Rapid City voters sent a strong anti-billboard message Tuesday, approving two measures to restrict the future development of the signs in the city by nearly a 2-1 margin.

Members of the Scenic Rapid City citizens' group that brought the issue to a vote said the outcome gives both the city council and the state Legislature a mandate to further restrict billboards.

"This is very big to our council members," group president Lisa Modrick said. "They needed to see what the citizens thought."

Rapid City's two largest outdoor advertising companies, Lamar Outdoor Advertising and Epic Outdoor Advertising, together with Daktronics, the Brookings-based international digital sign manufacturer, issued a joint statement saying the measures "will prevent billboard companies from updating and upgrading older, larger billboards" because it prevents them from trading old signs for new digital ones.

"There can be a balance between local outdoor advertising opportunities and ensuring the preservation of our great landscape," said Doug Rumpca, general manager of Lamar.

"Unfortunately, passing these measures will make both efforts nearly impossible."

The companies said the measures also will reduce the advertising opportunities for local businesses and limit the number of public service messages.

"Advertising on digital billboards is cost effective, flexible and fast and has significantly boosted business," said John McManigal, sales manager for Budweiser distributor Eagle Sales of the Black Hills in a written statement. "With a limited inventory in the area, existing units will become more valuable and costs are sure to rise."

The first measure passed 8,874 to 4,556 (66.1 percent to 33.9 percent). It bans new digital billboards and restricts the size and spacing of new static billboards.

The second measure passed 8,635 to 4,542 (65.5 percent to 34.5 percent). It establishes a 20-year expiration date on sign credits, the city's currency for how sign companies can trade old signs for new.

Scenic Rapid City, led by Modrick and chairman Jim Petersen, formed this spring and circulated petitions to put the measures on the ballot, with members saying they were frustrated at a lack of city government progress to restrict billboards.

They spoke at civic meetings and raised money for mailers to spread their message that billboards are unattractive, harmful to the tourism economy and dangerous to drivers.

Lamar and Daktronics spent thousands of dollars to advertise their opposition.

"The initiated measures are misleading people," Rumpca told the Journal during the campaign, "and in my opinion the general public thinks this will include the billboards coming into town around Box Elder, and that is simply not the case."

He said on-premise signs, not affected by the measures, are a significant source of clutter in the community.

Scenic Rapid City members accused Epic president Brendan Casey of confusing the issue by saying the measures won't stand up in court, when the city attorney said he was sure they will.

The sign companies did not respond Tuesday to questions about whether they planned a legal challenge.

Voter Kris Hittle, an insurance agent, said the companies' message resonated with her.

"I guess I voted no because it won't get rid of any billboards," she said Tuesday evening outside her polling place at the Canyon Lake Senior Center.

"I don't like the billboards that are outside of town, and since it's not going to affect those, why have it affect billboards in town?" she said. Hittle said her daughter also planned to vote against the measures, saying Daktronics is a South Dakota business that hires graduates of the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology.

Voter Maggie Abernathy, 25, said she voted in favor of the measures because they struck a good balance and allowed existing signs to remain.

"I don't think we need to eliminate them, but we do need to limit them," she said.

Other voters said they have had it with billboards.

"Rapid City needs to address the billboard issue," said Carol Robinson, 52, a nurse who said the signs block the area's scenic beauty. "It's out of control."

Contact Barbara Soderlin at 394-8417 or barbara.soderlin@rapidcityjournal.com.

 

 

Copyright 2015 Rapid City Journal. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(45) Comments

  1. JoEllen
    Report Abuse
    JoEllen - June 19, 2011 10:19 am
    The restrictions on billboards need to go county wide and include railroad property easements as well...I see Epic is slapping up another billboard to add to the row of them between Elk Vale and Box Elder...yuck
  2. Report Abuse
    - June 10, 2011 10:04 am
    Interesting....

    Google the phrase "Billboard restrictions" and see what you come up with.

    I see page after page, (admittedly at first glance), of restrictions being upheld. Just saying.



  3. rcdakota
    Report Abuse
    rcdakota - June 09, 2011 10:42 pm
    Roland said: "I just don't understand peoples obsession with billboards.This will accomplish nothing expect to possibly get the city sued. This could have been handled much better, by people on both sides, the council, and the mayor.Sad, sad, sad. "

    Your response says nothing to me. Please enlighten me on all the much better ways to handle this situation. I like specific plans...enlighten me.
  4. PropertyRights
    Report Abuse
    PropertyRights - June 09, 2011 10:12 pm
    Not done yet, Java. If you listen carefully you can almost hear Lamar, Daktronics, and the national association of outdoor advertisng attorneys putting on their medium gray suits, grabbing their breifcases, and booking plane tickets to Rapid City. Listen closer and you can hear City Attorney Jason Green wimpering as he packs up his belongings from his office knowing there will be a new Mayor and his legal advise was politically motivated and dead wrong. These ordinances WILL NOT stand. Remember, I said it here first :) Modrick, Sgt Petersen, and Hanks sent the city down an expensive road for an election year distraction. It didn't work for x-Mayor Hanks/Seversen, now the taxpayers get to pay. Dumb.
  5. JAVA JUNKY
    Report Abuse
    JAVA JUNKY - June 08, 2011 11:39 pm
    Yes but the electronic billboards would still be here and they would get bigger and bigger and closer and closer. They are after all meant to distract drivers by design.

    The legal system will come down on the side of the property owner if that owner can prove that adjacent property owners are causing devaluation of their property. Sometimes solar loss can apply, but I never heard of loss of view applying. I would suppose that some states or cities have such laws or ordinances.

    This is a done deal folks.
  6. Zed Head
    Report Abuse
    Zed Head - June 08, 2011 9:48 pm
    JAVA JUNKY said: “The signs will be coming down.”

    When?

    “…over time.”

    It was a self correcting situation. Had you left well enough alone, they would have been coming down …NOW.


    And by the way, that big tree in your backyard is blocking my view. Ask Larry Ellison how that one is working out for him.
  7. Report Abuse
    - June 08, 2011 8:09 pm
    Much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    The joint company and city committee was going nowhere fast, (stall stall stall no progress, delay delay).....

    The voters were frustrated at the lack of any detectable movement. As I understand it this was the first time the voters could say anything directly. People are surprised? I'm not.
  8. JAVA JUNKY
    Report Abuse
    JAVA JUNKY - June 08, 2011 7:37 pm
    Good luck with that taking away the internet thing dude.

    It all seems clear to me. We voted

    Only off premises signs are effected (not on the business site premises). On premises signs are already pretty restrictive and based on building size.

    No new off premises electronic signs

    Spacing minimums will be increased on all off premises signs. This decreases the number of signs over time.

    Existing signs will be grandfathered in. (taxes will be increased through sign credits.) The signs will be coming down.
  9. TheDudeAbides
    Report Abuse
    TheDudeAbides - June 08, 2011 4:35 pm
    Now that "digital billboards" are banned in RC, it’s time to take away the internet! That's all that a web-page is a digital billboard. I can't believe that Rapid City has nothing better to vote on than the pretty billboards in town. All I can say is Wall Drug is safe (for now) since they aren't in RC city limits! Otherwise, their whole business strategy would revolve around the free ice-water and no one would know about it since, yep you guessed it....NO BILLBOARDS! Let's see... it's illegal to feed the natural occurring ducks & geese, now we can't advertise our businesses (& nonprofits) on an advanced technological digital thing-a-ma-jig and by the looks of it, pedal bikes are next on the chopping block I guess! Welcome to Rapid City, gateway to…. Oh wait; I don’t know where Rapid City is! Without the advertising of local businesses, I don’t know what Rapid City has to offer or where it’s located! Thanks Scenic RC!!
  10. Quevol
    Report Abuse
    Quevol - June 08, 2011 4:09 pm
    I’ll admit it, I am a sore loser. As a member of a true anti-billboard movement, it’s frustrating to see the voters throw away an opportunity to bring about real change, simply by voting on an issue that they knew nothing about. All they saw was: “GET RID OF ALL BILLBOARDS”. Passage of these proposals now insures anything but that.

    Predator, give it up. These people are obviously too closed minded and/or too intellectually challenged to grasp the ramifications for passing these measures.
  11. Buck
    Report Abuse
    Buck - June 08, 2011 4:02 pm
    I don't like any signs at all. Remove all signs from all businesses. If you want to go to business to buy something then you need to figure out were that business is. In fact, without sings on businesses just think how much foot traffic for all business would increase. People would need to go in and out until they found the business they were looking for. Win-win I'd say.
  12. Roland
    Report Abuse
    Roland - June 08, 2011 3:47 pm
    I just don't understand peoples obsession with billboards.

    This will accomplish nothing expect to possibly get the city sued. This could have been handled much better, by people on both sides, the council, and the mayor.

    Sad, sad, sad.
  13. JAVA JUNKY
    Report Abuse
    JAVA JUNKY - June 08, 2011 3:06 pm
    RCJFan said on: June 8, 2011, 11:43 am
    "I wonder if Brendan Casey will now follow through on his talks of a lawsuit...or if that was just a hollow threat."

    Brendan Casey is a good businessman, trying to protect his legitimate business. I don't fault him.

    As I see it, the notion that if you just put up another bigger billboard, you'll get more business is false. But everyone gets to look through the maze of signs to find yours, and then someone puts a big one in front of your big one.

    Two points:

    Most business owners will tell you that return business-coupled w/word of mouth recommendations generates most business. Having a good clientele and a good reputation is the best advertisement.

    This is the electronic age, not so much for signs, but in the way we communicate and seek out information. In the past, hopefully the passenger is looking through the maze for a sign. Today the passenger is looking at their phone or listening to a satellite devise to get directions and information on where to eat and sleep or play or attend. They can check vacancies, make reservations, get childcare and instructions on how to bring it all together with ease. No need to stare through the maze.

    Best advice for Brendan would be to diversify.

    Best advice for all walk-in business. Make the arrival of that electronic business memorable in the most positive ways, including what they see when they get there.

    I wish someone would write a column about BH Corp and their 19th century infrastructure. Where did that 1/3rd increase go?
  14. FreeRapidOfBillboards
    Report Abuse
    FreeRapidOfBillboards - June 08, 2011 2:55 pm
    I'm not upset Predator, but I think you are ;-)
  15. Nelag T
    Report Abuse
    Nelag T - June 08, 2011 2:02 pm
    FreeRapidOfBillboards said: "Nelag, Weifenboch was on there also and he got crushed. Both him and Hadcock are friends with some billboard owners. Not surprisingly, both always side with the billboard companies."

    It might have something to do with the fact that Hanks and Kooiker combined for $112k in campaign spending compared to $8k for Weifenbach. Look at it this way - Hanks paid $12.08 per vote, Kooiker paid $7.84 per vote, Wernicke was $9.95 per vote, and Weifenbach was the most effective advertiser, paying $4.46 per vote. Looks like electronic billboards save money?!?


  16. Quevol
    Report Abuse
    Quevol - June 08, 2011 1:25 pm
    pilatus, you truly represent the people that voted for this measure. You have no understanding of the issue. The billboard companies wanted the people to vote no, primarily because a yes vote freezes any growth potential. By growth they mean in revenue not the number of signs. They didn’t mind that they had to take down 4 billboards to install 1 digital sign One digital sign can generate 10 times the revenue of one static billboard. A no vote (on the first proposal) would have significantly reduced the current number of billboards.

    The voters had an opportunity to bring about “real” change in the world of billboard advertising. With their “yes”, they decided to do nothing. The message is clear. “We in Rapid City like the way things are now just fine.”

    wheresthesunshine, you also don’t understand. There will not be any bulldozing of billboards. Not now.
  17. Predator
    Report Abuse
    Predator - June 08, 2011 1:20 pm
    pilatus said: "Predator where do you get that these companies CANNOT remove billboards? They can take them down all they want. This vote was for no NEW signs to go up. It wasn't a ban on billboards, it was a moratorium. A legally authorized period of delay until the election. Now the election results are in, and the whining has started."

    These are PRIVATE PROPERTY... Neither you nor anyone else except for the owner can do anything with them... They can and are now legal or legal non-conforming signs.. It is part of the 14th amendment "Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness"

    We can compensate them if you want to remove them... Been saying this since the beginning... Unless you have a lot of money these boards are going stay where they are and as big and ugly as you say... Just the fact.. It is what we just voted for..
  18. Nelag T
    Report Abuse
    Nelag T - June 08, 2011 1:15 pm
    FreeRapidOfBillboards said: "Nelag, Weifenboch was on there also and he got crushed. Both him and Hadcock are friends with some billboard owners. Not surprisingly, both always side with the billboard companies.

    HAHA nice reasoning on Weifenbach...maybe it had something to with the fact that Hanks and Sam finished 1-2 the last time as well, and averaged $51k in campaign spending versus $8k for Weifenbach.

    Here's an interesting way to look at it: Kooiker and Hanks spent $8.83 per vote, compared to $4.46 per vote for Weifenbach. Looks like efficient advertising to me!!! Sorry for the numbers and facts, I know you'll ignore them anyway.

  19. Predator
    Report Abuse
    Predator - June 08, 2011 1:10 pm
    FreeRapidOfBillboards said: "The billboard companies CAN remove the monstrosities, Predator stop the misinformation. It didn't work before the vote and doesn't work now either. Go back to whatever you did before this issue came up. Once we start taxing them, you'll see these old ugly monsters being torn down. Once billboard companies start having to pay for their unrented billboards, they will take them down likity split! Tax these buggers!"

    Sorry to get you so upset... Must be you are starting to see the light :-) I give no false info... We both know the boards are NOT coming down NOW or in the future... It is what YOU wanted not me.. This was your vote to decide... Now please take responsibility for your actions on this vote... Caring about the economics of Rapid City is what I was doing before this issue came up.... So I guess I am not going anywhere but here :-)
  20. FreeRapidOfBillboards
    Report Abuse
    FreeRapidOfBillboards - June 08, 2011 1:08 pm
    Kernall, advertising on billboards is already expensive. Few pay the exorbitant price now, they sure as heck won't pay if the price goes up. It is much smarter to use all the other resources available ie: Facebook, internet, GPS, television, radio, etc and many of those outlets are free! Plus, just have a good product. Word of Mouth advertising is the best money can buy, that's free too! PLUS their billboards already look "abandoned", they didn't need a vote to make that happen. Whenever one goes unrented, its all grey... not the best color to sell your product. Good Luck on the court topic, LOL!
  21. Kernall
    Report Abuse
    Kernall - June 08, 2011 12:03 pm
    To the people that think businesses are going to stop advertising on billboards now. You're wrong. You're just flat out wrong. You're making a wild claim based on zero evidence. What you've done is instead to make that advertising more expensive for the business owner.

    But, for the sake of argument, let's just say that Lamar and EPIC all of a sudden go out of business in Rapid(Good for job growth FYI). Do you really think they're going to spend the money to pull down the structure? Not likely. They'll walk away from it, and now instead of a maintained billboard, you'll have a lovely abandoned one.

    Finally, there could very easily be a challenge to this in court. While it may or may not be a good challenge, this is an ordinance the restricts individual property rights, and that could get the city into trouble. Quite honestly, I wouldn't heed Mr. Green's legal advice all that much to begin with, his record isn't exactly the best.
  22. FreeRapidOfBillboards
    Report Abuse
    FreeRapidOfBillboards - June 08, 2011 11:53 am
    Nelag, Weifenboch was on there also and he got crushed. Both him and Hadcock are friends with some billboard owners. Not surprisingly, both always side with the billboard companies. I'm voting for Ritchie for multiple reasons, one being he will stand up to these billboard companies. Ritchie is a good man!
  23. pilatus
    Report Abuse
    pilatus - June 08, 2011 11:46 am
    Predator where do you get that these companies CANNOT remove billboards? They can take them down all they want. This vote was for no NEW signs to go up. It wasn't a ban on billboards, it was a moratorium. A legally authorized period of delay until the election. Now the election results are in, and the whining has started.
  24. RCJFan
    Report Abuse
    RCJFan - June 08, 2011 11:43 am
    I wonder if Brendan Casey will now follow through on his talks of a lawsuit...or if that was just a hollow threat.
  25. FreeRapidOfBillboards
    Report Abuse
    FreeRapidOfBillboards - June 08, 2011 11:37 am
    The billboard companies CAN remove the monstrosities, Predator stop the misinformation. It didn't work before the vote and doesn't work now either. Go back to whatever you did before this issue came up. Once we start taxing them, you'll see these old ugly monsters being torn down. Once billboard companies start having to pay for their unrented billboards, they will take them down likity split! Tax these buggers!
  26. Nelag T
    Report Abuse
    Nelag T - June 08, 2011 11:12 am
    FreeRapidOfBillboards said: "Did everyone notice that whoever was on the electronic billboards LOST their respective races? I wouldn't dare put my business up on one of those, I might lose customers. Pay to lose customers!?! No Thanks!"

    Deb Hadcock is the only one that I noticed, and she is in a close runoff. By default, I hope Ritchie wins that one.

  27. Predator
    Report Abuse
    Predator - June 08, 2011 11:04 am
    pilatus said: "Bing brings up a good point. If a No vote would have reduced the number of billboards as Epic and Lamar claim, then why would they want people to vote no? We obviously can't trust them to use their own judgement and willfully remove these monstrosities since they both attempted to erect X amount (the exact number escapes me) of signs before this went to a vote. Good neighbors my blank."

    The reason from what I gathered was that the billboard companies were trying to show that there already was a ban on billboards... Their point proven as no permits were allowed... They definitely CANNOT remove the monstrosities they have because the vote NOW does not allow it... With a NO vote they could have been reduced or even removed... Now what you see is what you get.... Need to be careful what you ask for when you do not have all the facts. As this article reads ANTI-BILLBOARDS... Right, we now have the same billboards we did before... Nothing accomplished..
  28. FreeRapidOfBillboards
    Report Abuse
    FreeRapidOfBillboards - June 08, 2011 11:01 am
    Predator, how'd ya like the vote? That sure was a loud minority, ah? Taxing billboards... you sure can because it is a physical structure. It is time these things start contributing to our local economy by paying an 'ugly up fee'. Predator, I'm with ya on the "LOL's". I've been laughing since the results last night. Hopefully now all those ugly orange billboards will be taken down and they will go back to being unrented. The era of the billboard has come and gone...good riddance.
  29. Predator
    Report Abuse
    Predator - June 08, 2011 10:33 am
    FreeRapidOfBillboards said: "Did everyone notice that whoever was on the electronic billboards LOST their respective races? I wouldn't dare put my business up on one of those, I might lose customers. Pay to lose customers!?! No Thanks!"


    LOL!!!! You must be using these billboards to have this knowledge... LOL!!!!!
  30. Predator
    Report Abuse
    Predator - June 08, 2011 10:31 am
    If billboard companies can't rent them out and they are being taxed (which is next :)), they will just end up taking them down."

    Wonder what the RCJ, Newspapers, Radio and TV think about paying taxes on advertising.... The tax on advertising will affect all of these businesses... For me makes no difference..
  31. FreeRapidOfBillboards
    Report Abuse
    FreeRapidOfBillboards - June 08, 2011 10:04 am
    Did everyone notice that whoever was on the electronic billboards LOST their respective races? I wouldn't dare put my business up on one of those, I might lose customers. Pay to lose customers!?! No Thanks!
  32. pilatus
    Report Abuse
    pilatus - June 08, 2011 9:58 am
    Bing brings up a good point. If a No vote would have reduced the number of billboards as Epic and Lamar claim, then why would they want people to vote no? We obviously can't trust them to use their own judgement and willfully remove these monstrosities since they both attempted to erect X amount (the exact number escapes me) of signs before this went to a vote. Good neighbors my blank.
  33. FreeRapidOfBillboards
    Report Abuse
    FreeRapidOfBillboards - June 08, 2011 9:48 am
    Lots of billboard lobbyists on this comment sections today, sore losers :( Thank You Scenic America and 8,874 people on 8th street, the message has been sent to the billboard companies and their friends on the city council. As far as the "we'll continue to look at the HUGE billboards" (from Predator)... I think businesses might be too afraid to advertise on them now. If billboard companies can't rent them out and they are being taxed (which is next :)), they will just end up taking them down.
  34. Eggman
    Report Abuse
    Eggman - June 08, 2011 8:48 am
    Vote was taken, results are in. Now, basically nothing will happen...that's the way it works. If we want to have real change, we need to boycott those business who use billboards and frequent those who don't. We not only need to boycott, but we need to call those business who we see polluting South Dakota and complain...often...
  35. Bing
    Report Abuse
    Bing - June 08, 2011 8:16 am
    Robert 11 said: "what did the yes vote prove? No more billboards but does not take any down. So we still have 400 billboards ( which is true). The billboard company were willing to take down 4 billboards to put up 1 digital boards. If there were 400 billboards ( which there is not ) that would leave only 100 signs. Sound like a great deal to me 100 over 400 signs.Does everyone understand that there idea of 400 Billboards include business. Like McDonalds (3), Sonic (2), Perkins(2) and so on. Nothing will change that is what you voted yes for."

    Yes Robert that would have happened... sure it would have... yep they would have taken down all 400 and put up only 100. Have you heard of this business before.... just look around the RCJ site your on now. I count 7 advertisement on this one page. Do you think that payed the bills? What a great service they are doing......
  36. wheresthesunshine
    Report Abuse
    wheresthesunshine - June 08, 2011 8:14 am
    upfornews said: "Scenic Rapid City how about focusing on the run down, dingy motels all over town? What about the casinos and other businesses that look absolutely shotty? What about the drunks stumbling around downtown and North Rapid? How about focusing on North Rapid alone? "

    YES! I think that is much more worthwhile than trying to revitalize the downtown. Bulldoze them all down and start fresh! Pride in your community is reflected by what you allow it to look like.
  37. Predator
    Report Abuse
    Predator - June 08, 2011 8:05 am
    Bing said: "Take a hint Lamar/Epic... obviously the citizen think your business is an ugly overpowering distraction to our city. By all means don't work with that in a positive way. Just hate them all the way home to your huge over-sized home."By the way, if anyone here is in marketing or advertising. . . kill yourself. Thank you." - Bill Hicks"

    WOW!!! Sounds like a lot of hate here... Bing can you keep it positive ??? We obviously did not make thing better or worse with this vote... What you see right now is what you get... And we did not like that to begin with?? That's why I say "Way to go Scenic America" We still have what they were fighting to not have... Go figure...
  38. jtdotcom
    Report Abuse
    jtdotcom - June 08, 2011 7:45 am
    A city that doesnt want to look like a city.Maybe you want people to think yor so special in Rapid city you dont sell anything.I get the impression that RC is anti-busines'
  39. upfornews
    Report Abuse
    upfornews - June 08, 2011 7:39 am
    Scenic Rapid City how about focusing on the run down, dingy motels all over town? What about the casinos and other businesses that look absolutely shotty? What about the drunks stumbling around downtown and North Rapid? How about focusing on North Rapid alone? Instead you focus on a Hanks pushed matter: billboards. Well good job and good job RC voters now the old ones will not be torn down to add digital billboards, we will no longer see as many public warnings about criminals who are loose, our local businesses (which support the community) will not afford to advertise. Good Job, well thought out there.
  40. JoEllen
    Report Abuse
    JoEllen - June 08, 2011 7:20 am
    Take it statewide! Maybe they can be more reasonable and where are the penalties for those bending the rules? There is something they need to remember when those companies are doing business. Good job Rapid City for taking a stand-it has to begin somewhere and sometime-here and now sound darn good.
  41. Robert 11
    Report Abuse
    Robert 11 - June 08, 2011 7:16 am
    what did the yes vote prove? No more billboards but does not take any down. So we still have 400 billboards ( which is true). The billboard company were willing to take down 4 billboards to put up 1 digital boards. If there were 400 billboards ( which there is not ) that would leave only 100 signs. Sound like a great deal to me 100 over 400 signs.
    Does everyone understand that there idea of 400 Billboards include business. Like McDonalds (3), Sonic (2), Perkins(2) and so on.
    Nothing will change that is what you voted yes for.
  42. Predator
    Report Abuse
    Predator - June 08, 2011 6:13 am
    Stopyerwhining said: "Nope, none of us thought that the billboard measure included the area around Box Elder, though you all spent a lot of money to make us focus on that. Enough said, you lost....."

    Lost ??? I don't think anyone lost.... The vote does nothing for billboards that are up now.... We have those huge billboards we will have to look at forever because now they are grandfathered in.... I personally would have liked to have seen them made smaller like the billboard people were trying to do... Oh well continue looking at the huge billboards that are blocking local businesses.... Way to go Scenic America..
  43. Joseph Budd
    Report Abuse
    Joseph Budd - June 07, 2011 11:21 pm
    Now, lets see how much money Casey and company throw around to try and bypass the will of the voters.
  44. Stopyerwhining
    Report Abuse
    Stopyerwhining - June 07, 2011 11:12 pm
    Nope, none of us thought that the billboard measure included the area around Box Elder, though you all spent a lot of money to make us focus on that. Enough said, you lost.....
  45. El Publius
    Report Abuse
    El Publius - June 07, 2011 10:59 pm
    Next stop the county.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Activate subscription button gif

Poll

Loading…

Fur-Ever Wild was just approved to keep wolf cubs and fox kits at a wildlife education center in Deadwood. Do you agree with the South Dakota Animal Industry Board's ruling?

View Results

Recent Blog Posts

IMBIZZY

IMBIZZY

IMBIZZY = I'm busy

13 hours ago(0)

Medicap precriptions now filled at The Medicine Shoppe

According to a news release from The Medicine Shoppe Pharmacy, 1304 Mt. Rushmore Road, prescriptions have been transferred from the Medicap Ph…

June 01, 2015 1:15 pm(0)

Permit sought for wind farm in Butte County

The state Public Utilities Commission this week received a permit application from Wind Quarry Operations LLC, based at Montrose, Colorado, fo…

June 01, 2015 8:31 am(0)

U THINK

U THINK

U THINK = You think?

May 29, 2015 8:29 am(0)

Static for Blue Jay Wireless

The state Public Utilities Commission provided an unusually cool reception Tuesday to an application by Blue Jay Wireless. The suburban Dallas…

May 27, 2015 8:06 am(0)