If you happen to live in or visit the SF Bay Area, and drive on the 280 freeway between San Jose and San Francisco, you'll notice it feels a bit...odd. That's because billboards are banned along that stretch [1], and all you see is the beautiful green rolling hills.

[1] https://www.kqed.org/news/11805469/why-arent-any-billboards-...

It seems strange to me someone would be allowed to put up billboards to begin with along public property. I assume the freeway is public property correct? It should be illegal to begin with without approval from the public.

This may not be obvious, but the public land (Right of Way) for a freeway is very small compared to the visual range of a driver in a car, and the scale of "things you see while driving" is much larger than you would think. (Go stand next to an ordinary residential stop sign and then think about how big and high up it actually is compared to your mental model of it.)

I'm not aware of any bill boards that are on public land (though some probably exist). Rather almost all bill boards are built on private land, or atop private buildings, as a revenue generator for the property owner. Anything within 500 feet of the road is viable, or even further away assuming a large sign. So for billboards to be prohibited there has to be land use regulation that says property owners can't build large signs.

That is actually less trivial to enforce than you might think, because the line between a straight up advertising billboard and, say, the sign that lets you know there's a McDonald's at the next exit, is a little fuzzy. There's enormous pressure from business owners to permit large "marquee" signs so that drivers can spot their business from far back enough that they can easily get in the right lane, slow down, turn, etc. without missing it.

There's also enormous pressure from the public to be able to find things, especially in the case of... you know, a McDonalds on the interstate with people driving by who are from the other side of the country. ;)

I don't think most people have a problem with honest ads. The issue is the billboards that tell you "There's something amazing ahead!" and you pay $10 to get in and it's a stupid doll. Or the collections of a billion billboards for different things on a single building. Or the TV ads that use every trick in the book to try and manipulate you into buying a crappy product.

Sadly businesses seem to be moving more and more towards "just spend all our money on marketing" rather than "just spend all our money on the product". (I'm looking at you, Plex.)

I think that logo signs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_sign) are sufficient for helping the public find things.

Agreed, although those aren't present in all states (or even at all exits within states that use them).

Edit: actually... IDK. In some states they're just useless too (you get off the interstate and then you find the business that was on the sign is 10 miles down the road, away from the interstate). At least the "this far to <business>" and "this way to <business>" part on billboards is usually accurate ;)

When I was driving around Maine I never saw a billboard (I assume banned) but they had little signs a bit bigger than a regular road-name sign that indicated in which direction various kinds of shops and restaurants would be with distances. Like a sign might point right and say "McDonald's 0.5 Miles ==>".

It wasn't necessarily as good as a giant golden M visible from a mile or more away, but it was sufficient. I think the logo signs + small directional signs once you're off the highway would do a good job in most areas. Plus once you're on the main drags that hold most of these things you'll be hard pressed to miss them. It didn't take long to get used to looking for them when driving around either.

Tasmania in Australia has pretty strict rules on billboards and other signage. It's lovely.

That’s absolutely amazing. In reading that, I had to ask myself several times if it was real or not. No one seems to make such bold and decisive decisions for good anymore.

Getting a bit off-topic now, but I'm reminded of the song Logos by Faded Paper Figures looking at the photos of empty signs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO_e7Qq2WKg

Signs on every mountain side, Line highways, stitching desert thread ... My soul goes with your logos, There's no place left to dream tonight

This is what jumped into my mind:

I think that I shall never see

A billboard lovely as a tree

Indeed, unless the billboards fall

I'll never see a tree at all.

Ogden Nash

Yea, in my home state, all big signs are banned; billboards, store signs, etc. Only a smallish sign is allowed for any given building or whatever. It's really nice.

I love that!

Here where I live in Canada, billboards aren't allowed except on indigenous land. While I totally respect it, it's a horrible eyesore.

Kelowna?

Those fuuuuuucking flashing LED billboards on the WFN as you approach the corner to the bridge. So surprised no one is sabotaging those on the regular. Can’t believe they are legal.

Lower mainland.

Those photos remind me of the contrast in software too. Compare today's Lemmings, with any other Lemmings that didn't run on an ad-based business model. Level design is significantly worse to allow it to run as many ads as possible.

Signs are ugly, but I don't think it's right to tell people they can't have a sign on their property. Property rights and freedom of speech are worth tolerating a bit of eyesore.

Disagree. We have regulations for noise levels emitting from people’s private property, for example, for the sake of public interest.

A person shouldn't be able to have signage above their business to indicate what it is, the phone number, etc? Not billboards, but literally a sign that says "Johnny's Bakery"

This seems a bit disingenuous. It's an advertising ban, not a ban on any and all forms of signage. In the pictures of Sao Paulo you can clearly see that businesses still have small signs out front, presumably with the name of the business on them.

We frequently limit property rights and speech when it pollutes, disturbs, or otherwise negatively affects others.

Is this a limit on property rights or an expansion of viewshed rights? It all depends on perspective.

Note that there currently exists a line that prevents auditory distractions - the farm on the side of the road can put up signs but they can’t blast music or AM Radio from a loudspeaker. IMO it’s still about as distracting to the senses.

I think the real difference is a whole generation who is used to linear TV has convinced themselves they can somehow tune it out. This isn’t true, but they’re much more likely to be against restrictions since it “doesn’t effect them” that much.

Does advertising (as a form of speech) have any societal value?

If not then I think it's reasonable to restrict (time, place, and manner restrictions are recognized as being consistent with 1st A).

But maybe you can think of some value I can't.

Excuse me, some photons appear to be leaking off your property and onto mine.