Dear San Jose Friends and Residents,
The City of San Jose proposes an amendment to the Sign Ordinance which will expand the locations available for electronic signs in the City (Phase II). The proposed change offers no economic benefits to the City of San Jose and comes at a great financial cost to the City. It will allow the proliferation of lighted digital advertisement in the City, with potentially dozens of freeway facing, free standing, energy wasting, driver distracting and hazardous to wildlife electronic billboards. It will also allow electronic signage on buildings and structures in some areas of Downtown San Jose.
And please call your city council member and express your opposition to electronic billboards. You can find their contact information HERE.
Here are some facts, questions and talking points:
There is no economic benefit to the City. Why is this a priority at all?
Science shows clear causation between electronic signs and distracted driving. - Why risk more accidents and put people's lives at risk with freeway facing Electronic Signs?
Artificial light at night interferes with the internal clocks of all living things, disrupting hormones and physiological functions. It can increase health risks, including cancer (see link HERE) The City should not promote changes that increase the health risks of its citizens.
The City is proposing the expansion of allowable signage lighting hours throughout the night. Most migratory birds fly long-distances at night, and alight to rest from their journeys during the hours just before dawn. The City should not interfere with the amazing phenomenon of bird migration.
Highway 87 and I280 have been classified as “scenic highways” and are free of billboards at this time. Why abandon this policy?
How will this impact the Lick Observatory? How will YOU be able to see Comet Neowise through the City Glow?
City staff has said that electronic signs will replace regular billboards at a rate of 4:1 and that this would improve the aesthetics of San Jose. Do you agree that glaring lights at night improve the quality of life in San Jose? The City could find a better way to remove blight. What would this process set in motion? What will happen when these electronic signs become blight? Will they be replaced with even brighter signs?
Proponents say that this change will create a legal path for this type of signage. They argue that these signs appear anyway, and Code Enforcement is weak. Does it make sense to legitimize hazards rather than strengthen code enforcement? Is permitting 90+ electronic signs the best solution? Will code enforcement be able to correct neighborhood complaints about the brightness of the lights?
Proponents say they will study impacts to wildlife. There is already a large body of research detailing ways that light pollution harms birds, plants and animals. So many populations of flora and fauna are in decline. The City should not cause further unnecessary harm.
Digital billboards are tracking you (see link HERE). The most intrusive aspect of the web is expanding into our daily lives, targeting us with political and commercial ads.
Please email or call your City council member and ask San Jose to stop this runaway process, and to focus on the critically important health, social and environmental issues that our society is struggling with. Please ask them to SHELVE THIS PROJECT.
Much appreciated,
Shani Kleinhaus
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society