THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, April 26, 1995 TAG: 9504260462
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B2 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY ALEX MARSHALL, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: NORFOLK LENGTH: Medium: 74 lines
A slim majority of the City Council agreed Tuesday night to allow private electronic billboards downtown, despite the objections of city review boards, residents and consultants over the last few months.
A four-vote coalition - Councilmen Paul R. Riddick, Randy Wright, Herbert Collins and the Rev. Joseph N. Green Jr. - derailed a compromise that would have allowed smaller electronic signs inside city garages.
The city's Planning Commission, Design Review Board, downtown advisory group and most residents at a public hearing opposed a proposed free-standing, electronic sign downtown that would flash commercial and public-service messages.
The opponents can take comfort that the billboard will not go on Waterside Drive as originally discussed. The vote Tuesday would allow such signs only on St. Paul's Boulevard between Market Street and Brambleton Avenue. The Scope electronic marquee is already in this area.
A majority of the council members believed the project's initiator and backer, Richard James, deserved a chance. James has labored for almost a decade on the proposal.
James plans to make money by selling commercial advertising. In return for allowing the sign on city land, Norfolk would be permitted to promote city events or put other messages on the sign 51 percent of the time.
The majority coalition was the same that backed the project months ago. Councilman Mason C. Andrews led the opposition to the project.
The council Tuesday only amended the law that now prohibits such projects. It did not approve a specific venture.
It's not clear whether the council can now choose James to build the proposed electronic sign.
City Attorney Philip R. Trapani has said that the city would probably have to choose a proposal through competitive bidding.
City Manager James B. Oliver said Tuesday that James' proposal would come before the council for a vote.
Wright, a key vote, denied charges that he had voted for the proposal in order to line up political support by Riddick. Wright is running for clerk of the Circuit Court.
``If I were voting politically, I would have voted against it,'' Wright said, noting that many of his constituents oppose the project. After the vote, opponents of the sign surrounded Wright and asked him to explain his action.
``I'm dumbfounded,'' said Peggy Twohy, past president of the Garden Club of Norfolk.
Riddick has pushed the billboard proposal for months. Riddick said he has labored so diligently on this proposal because he believes in James.
``Here's a young man who has been trying to get into business for 8 or 9 years and the system has failed him,'' Riddick said.
The remark highlights the different viewpoints on the issue. Sign opponents, such as Andrews, say the city has no obligation to allow someone to conduct a profit-making business venture on city property.
The council has had several vehement discussions on the issue, some of which involved race.
James and three of his council supporters are black. All the opponents are white.
Riddick has angered other council members by charging that subtle racism is behind the city's past indifference to James' proposal.
Andrews, in turn, has charged that Riddick had not played fair by organizing votes before meetings and before the council had thoroughly discussed the issue.
Mayor Paul D. Fraim said the four-member coalition subverted a compromise the entire council might have supported. Last week, a downtown group discussed putting smaller electronic signs, controlled by computers, inside city garages. About 90 percent of the people who travel downtown park in city garages, the city staff said.
KEYWORDS: NORFOLK CITY COUNCIL SIGNS BILLBOARD COMMERCIAL by CNB