In a contentious move that reopened old wounds, San Jose has approved large digital billboards at three new locations, angering some residents and environmentalists, who argue that the consequences of the city’s decision outweigh the monetary benefits it is set to receive.

Related Articles

San Jose approves $5.57 billion budget with increased funding for immigrant support

San Jose approves permit for new Chick-fil-A restaurant despite overwhelming opposition

San Jose rejects tower project near Valley Fair that residents called a ‘monstrosity’

City Council strikes down San Jose mayor’s pay-for-performance proposal

Letters: Food trucks are a good way for Gilroy to build community

Four months ago, elected leaders rankled downtown residents by entering an agreement with Orange Barrel Media that allowed the company to operate billboards at the Center for the Performing Arts, the McEnery Convention Center and at the Market/San Pedro Street and Second and San Carlos Street parking garages.

On Tuesday, the City Council struck a similar agreement with Clear Channel Outdoor to operate signs at Highway 87 and West Mission Street and 1404 Mabury Road and with Outfront Foster Interstate at Highway 87 and Willow Street — combined the jumbo signs will generate a minimum of $21.4 million. Residents, however, complain the additional revenue does not offset the environmental harms and increased threat of litigation that is set to follow.

“The most egregious contention justifying digital billboards by more than one city councilmember was that deserving city programs needed funding from billboards that otherwise might not be available,” said John Miller, a San Jose resident and co-founder of the group No Digital Billboards. “(It’s) a classic example of the ends justifying the means and a disturbing revelation.”

Digital billboards have been a polarizing topic in San Jose for decades, with the city once banning them. However, over the past decade, elected officials have begun to shift their tone as lobbying and advocacy efforts intensified.

In February, despite overwhelming opposition from District 3 residents, the City Council approved its agreement with Orange Barrel Media, citing the immediate monetary benefits and the potential to boost a vibrant atmosphere downtown as the region prepares to host a trio of major sporting events, like the Super Bowl and FIFA World Cup, in 2026.

As part of its agreement with Orange Barrel Media, San Jose could receive a minimum of just over $21 million over 20 years, though revenue estimates placed the figure closer to $37.5 million. The agreement is for an initial 10-year term with city options for two five-year extensions.

The city’s agreement with Clear Channel and Outfront Foster has similar terms, including several prohibitions such as no motion, no illumination between midnight and 6 a.m., and no violence, profanity, adult goods or services, and political and religious content. Estimates shared by the city show San Jose could receive more than $28 million if the full 20-year term is exercised.

City leaders have also stipulated that the billboards use 100% renewable energy.

But as was the case when the City Council approved the first signs earlier this year, concerns surfaced over whether the revenue boost was sufficient to offset the potential headaches.

“Anyone peddling the fallacy that LED billboards contribute less to sky glow and light trespass is ignorant of the physics of the scattering of light and fourth-order power laws and therefore lacks credibility,” said Dr. Paul Lynam, an astronomer at the Lick Observatory. “The scientific consensus of over 30,000 scientists in 10,000 publications is that light pollution is associated with every major disease, especially hormonal cancers. Light at night is being described as Edison’s cancer epidemic — the tobacco of breast and prostate cancer.”

Jason Hemp, a co-founder of the No Digital Billboards group, called the digital billboards proposal a “Trojan horse” because it could lead to a stream of other billboard proposals and potential litigation if the city were to stand in their way.

“Once you approve this, more billboards are going to come to San Jose,” Hemp said. “If you believe that you can only limit billboards on public property and prevent private property owners from pursuing the same opportunity, you’ll probably have more lawsuits coming to your doorstep, so let’s not delude ourselves.”

Despite the public outcry, officials said San Jose stands to reap more than just the monetary rewards from the new agreement. Along with the city receiving 12.5% of the display time for advertising, Clear Channel and Outfront will remove more than 30 signs before the digital billboards are installed.

“The directional light pollution is actually worse from the static billboards, but six being taken down for each face going up makes a big difference in our community, and the blight of many of these old billboards is quite striking,” District 4 City Councilmember David Cohen said.

While the billboard proposal has stirred mostly negative reactions from residents, several business organizations have offered their support, including the Alum Rock Santa Clara Street Business Association, which cited its belief that the signs could uplift East San Jose residents and businesses.

The San Jose Chamber of Commerce also wrote a letter in support of billboards, touting how the new agreements incorporated provisions requested by community members and highlighted the potential benefits, particularly with the World Cup, Super Bowl, and NCAA Men’s March Madness Tournament games coming to Silicon Valley next year.

“These events are not just entertainment, but major economic engines of the sports and entertainment economy the city is thoughtfully seeking to create,” San Jose Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Leah Toeniskoetter wrote in a letter to the City Council.

While acknowledging the concerns raised by residents, District 3 City Councilmember Carl Salas stated that the additional revenue — even if viewed as small in comparison to the city’s multi-billion-dollar annual budget — should not be discounted, nor should the impact on constituent services be overlooked, given the city’s financial challenges.

“I am amazed at the myriad of unquenchable requests and the pleasure when I can even give a $5,000 grant, let alone a $25,000 (or) $50,000 (one),” Salas said. “A million dollars is a lot of money to this council and this city. It makes a huge difference.”