Council debates LED billboard

The problem is a sign from above – above Grant Street.

At yesterday’s special City Council… The problem is a sign from above – above Grant Street.

At yesterday’s special City Council meeting, requested by Oakland Councilman Bill Peduto, council and other city officials met to discuss the $7 million, 1,200 square foot LED billboard that will be placed at the future Grant Street Transportation Center.

The problem, Peduto said, was that the sign was agreed upon by Pat Ford, Urban Redevelopment Authority director, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and LAMAR advertising without the consent of council, as directed by the Pittsburgh zoning code.

Peduto said five parts of the zoning code were violated. He displayed those provisions on a projection screen during the meeting. He cited rules that say council has to be consulted on electronic billboards and on changes exceeding $50,000 to buildings’ exteriors.

“The public has been denied its voice,” Peduto said. “The council has the authority to write laws, and we have an obligation to make sure they’re followed.”

Councilman Ricky Burgess chaired the meeting and asked council to refrain from talking about the billboard itself and instead direct questions about the process toward the three people present during the first round of questioning, Susan Tymoczko, city-planning zoning administrator, Noor Ismail, city-planning director, and city solicitor George Specter.

After two hours of questions and answers but no solutions, arguments sprang up about why Ford was not allowed to speak.

Councilman Jim Motznik asked several times why Ford was not present at the table. Burgess replied that the people at the table had to be unanimously voted on by council.

When Motznik persisted to learn who voted against Ford, council President Doug Shields answered that basic questions needed to be addressed to the three at the table first.

Just before Ford came to the table, Oakland Councilman Bruce Kraus asked why legal counsel wasn’t sought when the billboard was first proposed, which would have avoided the current situation. Motznik said time was being wasted.

“We have someone in the audience who can answer these questions, let him come to the table,” he said, referencing Ford.

Burgess called for a 10-minute break, and 15 minutes later Ford came to the table and refuted all claims one by one.

He said the billboard is not an electronic message board – that would be called a ticker, not a billboard. He also said the board was not an alteration to an existing structure; the structure and the board would all be new.

Ford said he’d done nothing improper in all the offices he’d held in the city government and showed council a high pile of papers and folders containing logs of all his actions while in office.

“All we’re doing is interpreting the laws you’ve given us, and if we’re interpreting them wrong, tell us,” Ford said.

Some thought the proceedings were unconventional for a City Council meeting.

Councilman Patrick Dowd said the meeting felt more like an investigation during the first round of questioning and added that he wasn’t elected to be an attorney.

Oakland Councilwoman Tonya Payne felt the same way. She left the meeting once to attend a previously scheduled appointment, and when she returned, she said, “It does feel like we’re in court so maybe I should have asked the judges if I was allowed to leave.”