Despite overwhelming opposition from residents, San Jose will consider a proposal Tuesday to add digital billboards at four downtown city-owned sites — a move that advocacy groups say, if approved, would cater to special interests over the public good and negatively impact the city for years.
The city’s proposal would allow Orange Barrel Media to lease billboards at the Center for the Performing Arts, McEnery Convention Center and at the Market/San Pedro Street and Second and San Carlos Street parking garages for potentially up to 20 years, providing the city with a guaranteed minimum of just over $21 million total for that period.
However, the group No Digital Billboards in San Jose has rejected the city’s rationale for moving forward with the deal, arguing the negative impacts to residents outweigh any prospective benefits and run afoul of the city’s goals.
“This is a classic public interest versus special interest topic,” said downtown resident Les Levitt. “If you ask any of the council members, ‘Is any resident coming to you and saying, we need more billboards?’ Of course not. It’s all driven by for-profit, out-of-town companies.”
Billboards have been a polarizing subject in San Jose for years, with the city going as far as outlawing them on public property decades ago.
Four states — Alaska, Hawaii, Maine and Vermont — have also taken a hard stance against billboards to preserve natural beauty while removing unnecessary distractions.
Despite the longstanding distaste by residents, lobbying efforts by billboard companies have successfully swayed elected officials in recent years to reconsider their views, first by ending a citywide ban, then greenlighting multiple proposals, including approving two digital billboards two years ago.
The proposal with Orange Barrel Media would place a digital sign at all of the sites, except for the Center of Performing Arts displaying two. The agreement contains an initial 10-year term with two five-year extension options.
In a memo to the City Council, Economic Development Director Nanci Klein and Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Director Chris Burton projected that the city could receive revenue shares of $37.5 million over the 20 years.
Under the proposed terms, the city would receive 15% of advertising time for free in addition to all unsold allotments. The agreement would also prohibit illumination between midnight and 6 a.m. and Orange Barrel Media would be required to pay for all utilities.
Despite his past voting record against billboards, including the 2022 proposal, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan said he will vote in favor of the upcoming agenda item, which he said has been in the works for more than a decade when city officials and the Chamber of Commerce visited Denver to study how it used billboards to generate revenue and increase vibrancy.
“I’m not the world’s biggest fan of billboards,” Mahan said. “I see this as a very unique opportunity on public buildings in downtown that should be bustling and busy and feel lively. I’ve previously voted against billboards in other contexts and I don’t want to see our freeways suddenly become lined with a bunch of new billboards.”
An illustration of how divisive the subject can be, Matthew Quevedo, Mahan’s own deputy chief of staff and a candidate for the District 3 City Council seat, voiced his opposition to billboards at a candidate forum hosted by the San Jose Downtown Association and Chamber of Commerce on Feb. 12.
“One of the selling points of our city is that it is naturally beautiful,” Quevedo said at the forum. “I don’t want to sacrifice that for some advertisements and some lighting across the city.”
Meanwhile, San Jose Planning Commission Chair Anthony Tordillos, also running for the downtown city council seat, said that support should depend on prospective locations and the exact details in any proposals the city considers.
“I think that there is something to be said when done tastefully,” Tordillos said. “Billboards can provide a sense of place and can also be useful for disseminating information like wayfinding, for public transportation and major city landmarks.”
However, despite a guarantee that the city would receive no less than $21 million over the entire 20-year period, detractors of the proposal assert the city is failing to grasp the long-term implications of the proposal.
“If putting digital billboards with national brand advertising all over San Jose is their idea of economic development, then we’re in a sad state,” Levitt said.
The No Billboards group maintains the proposal runs contrary to the city’s climate goals because of the amount of energy billboards required and the light pollution they produce.
Levitt also said that downtown billboards are just the first of several the city is planning to put up, and could open up the floodgates in other parts of the San Jose, turning it into something that resembles Las Vegas or even a mini Times Square.
“We say this because federal law says that the city can’t go into the billboard business on public property, and at the same time deny that right to private property owners,” Levitt said.
John Miller, a member of the No Digital Billboards steering committee, said elected officials and residents should also keep in mind that the revenues are relatively small when compared to the city’s $6 billion annual budget and don’t equate to the potential troubles San Jose could face from litigation or if it wants to remove a billboard.
“You don’t change the character of a city for a few dollars,” Miller said.