I was still living in North Carolina and under the age of majority when one evening at dinner Dad waxed eloquent and enthusiastic after meeting Vermont’s Governor Phil Hoff, and also about what had just happened in Vermont. The event of note was the ban of billboards in Vermont, preserving open scenic views along Vermont’s roads and highways. At the time Dad (aka Kays Gary) had taken a hiatus from The Charlotte Observer and was working for an environmentally conscious land developer in the North Carolina mountains, where billboards constituted a real eyesore to the natural beauty of the Appalachians.

Today’s new carries a story about an exemption to Vermont’s billboard ban. To me it seems to be a tempest in a teacup, but maybe the alarmists are the ones who are right. The exception recently approved by the legislature, and awaiting Governor Douglas‘ signature, is for a mural that advertises not a product, but a village—specifically Bellows Falls. The language defining allowable restrictions doesn’t open the way for billboards at all. From the AP story in today’s Times Argus:

As part of a transportation bill, [the legislature] included a provision that exempts murals that promote downtowns, provided they’re hand-painted, on the outside of a structure that’s existed on the site for at least 25 years and are located no more than 3 miles away from the destination they promote.

The measure also restricts wording on the murals to words relating to direction, distance and name of the downtown, doesn’t allow product advertising and bans signs visible from an interstate highway.The exemption was opposed by the state Agency of Transportation, the Agency of Natural Resources and the Travel Information Council, all of which considered it bad policy.

Peter Shumlin (D), the State Senate Pro Tem whose district includes Bellows Falls, said, “this is an example where bureaucrats in government are not exercising common sense when they interpret Vermont’s billboard law.”

I agree with him.

For one thing, our villages and towns should be promoted, and there’s nothing about the signs as defined that would interfere with scenic views. I doubt any village or town would tolerate an ugly sign, and what’s proposed seems to fit right in with Vermont’s rustic charm. Murals on city buildings have proved to be a plus, and well-done murals in the countryside may well prove a plus, too.

Peace.

Deborah Alicen