The Oceanside City Council is considering the LA / Vegas style billboards once again. You may remember, the request for an electronic billboard at state route 78 and Rancho Del Oro was shut down last year – this time there are two up for approval at SR 78 / Rancho Del Oro and SR 76/ Airport Rd, and Oceanside residents are not happy.
The brightly lit, flashing, 60 ft. high (6 stories) by 30 ft. wide billboards are are proposed on city owned property and as the petition says, residents have multiple reasons to be concerned:
- Distractions to drivers – traffic and accidents on the 78 and 76 are already a strain and a danger to drivers
- Effects on the surrounding homes and environment
- Opening the doors for more – once billboards are approved, more are likely to follow
- Blight in the City of Oceanside – billboards only add a cheap and cluttered look to our seaside community
Community members are circulating the petition below and you can help keep those tacky billboards out of Oceanside.
Please email the city council today!
Council@ci.oceanside.ca.us
Be sure to Include your Name and Street Address (to verify residency) and the Subject: NO Electronic Billboards!
Send the petition below or write your own personal email.
To read more on the subject follow the link to the Union Tribune or Coast News articles.
Friends of Fire Mountain 
March 17, 2016 at 10:30 pm
Kern says it will bring an influx of funding for .. whatever. Yes, I get that. Services that should be a priority.
Okay, good. So now you have the assets and the revenue stream. You get cozy with the fact that there is a place to earmark funding for -XxxxX- from. Great! We have extra funding for that river/nature walk project along the Alta Loma Creek in between El Camino Real and Crouch St.
In other words, ALL of you on that council are supposed to represent the people. You don’t tell the people. You ask the people. Saying “I’m going to support it this time” is the latter.
On the topic of representation, EVERY ONE OF YOU need to remember you may have won an election, but keep in mind that EACH of you were -NOT- voted for by all those votes cast for your adversary that sits next to you. There are more constituents out there that did not put you there. So it doesn’t take that many more to dissatisfy and lose your lead.
Most of the Oceanside City Council meetings make the British House of Commons look like a dead pan serious sit-com. All the bickering and childish behavior towards each other. Ever since Melba thats all it’s been. Voting bloc this, voting bloc that. It’s as if who else supports the agenda item is major factor in how one determines their own support.
Where’s the Rail Trail that was supposed to be part of the overall Sprinter project? Who let the the District off the hook with the excuse that there isn’t any room for it? There’s plenty of room. They drive vehicles back and forth on either side of the tracks.
Why was Fire Mountain Park closed back then? Why does the parcel of land bordered by Grandview, Crouch and Downs St’s show up as public parkland on many maps?
The Mission Avenue one way conversion. Things like that are a lot nicer when the overall surrounding area is setup to support it. In this case, it’s not. Restricting a major road to one direction and sending the others scurrying around a maze of stop signs? Two whole blocks should have been like that so traffic can flow the same way in both directions. Those white sticks glued to the asphalt look ghetto. Put a nicely crafted cement barrier in those places. If cars hit it, that is what it’s there for.
Now you all want to do something similar on South Hill St.? There’s times when the traffic signal queue is bordering parking lot status and you want to pinch it off even more?
Let’s make people go slower so they see things and want to stop. What that really does is frustrate the heck out of people who then bypass the whole area and be done with it. Like it or not, From Vista Way at 78, to Oceanside Harbor Drive is a major thoroughfare. You see the mess that exists at the Harbor Drive portion at times? You want that at the south end too?
Concentrate on the city, get the vibe, work on what we have now, make it better and you won’t need to look for all these small influxes.
As for the argument about blight, road safety, and the like? Come on, quit making it sound worse than it is. I whole heartedly agree, I too would rather not see more junk added to the roadside either. It’s going to light up my back yard, etc. As for the impact of the sign itself on surrounding properties? If you reside in an area that is going to be directly impacted by these proposals, I don’t see what a few more lights is going to do. It’s already noisy most of the day, you’ve got passing vehicles to various degrees contributing to air quality in the immediate area. Microscopic ‘tire dust’ all over everything. I can’t see the substantial impact there.
The real reason we don’t want them is it just looks like crap.
Be a little more realistic on the possible effects and more vocal on the facts.
March 27, 2016 at 1:41 am
I lived my whole life in Las Vegas. Las Vegas doesn’t even have OFF SITE DIGITAL signs. This is what we want for a beautiful little beach town, just when it’s becoming the place to be?
June 28, 2016 at 1:45 am
A late update to this story – Oceanside rejected the digital billboards. See the story here:http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/may/24/oceanside-planning-commission-billboards/