Giant billboards skirting city law, sprouting up around Seattle
»Play Video
SEATTLE -- Big-money players in the billboard industry are running rings around Seattle laws, and making a joke out of enforcement. And they're doing it by opening up would-be storefronts that seem barely legitimate. The KOMO 4 Problem Solvers investigated the tricksters that are turning Seattle into a haven for mega-billboards.
What could be for sale sit behind a locked door, inside a covered-up storefront stacked floor to ceiling with junk. Or they sit in a market open for just four hours a week off of a urine-soaked back alley. Or they are in the lobby of a restricted access apartment building.
As shady as all this looks, they're not selling drugs or black-market goods. But for a couple hours at a time at different locations all over the city, a man who wouldn't identify himself will sell you a $20 Apple gift card, Iceland Air gift cards or Target gift cards.
But the truth is he's not really trying to sell anything; he's just a pawn in a game of strategy between big money outdoor advertisers and the city of Seattle.
And the city? Well, it's losing.
Says Seattle Director of Planning and Development Diane Sugimura: "They're probably pushing the law pretty far."
By nominally selling a product that's sort of connected to the billboard outside, advertisers believe they've found a loophole in city law, one that allows them to slide mega billboards into spots where city laws have never allowed any billboards before.
"Finding loopholes, finding ways to manipulate the system -- that's something that really, that's not OK," said Seattle City Council President Sally Clark.
So far, the advertisers are winning and the game is worth millions.
"There seems to be people who can just go slap anything they want up and then just say, 'So? Sue us,"' said Paula Rees, an environmental designer by trade and an outdoor sign activist by vocation.
Rees says mega billboards are exploding on the Seattle horizon that has seen 10 new monolithic-sized signs in just the past few months. None of them are strictly permitted as billboards; instead they skirt the rules by pretending to be a sign advertising products sold within the building where they are displayed.
"And I think the industry knows right now that they can play because there's nobody who can police," said Rees.
For instance, over the past years, a small deli owner off Third Avenue downtown says he's been told to sell gift cards, cheesy plastic cups, even hiking boots. When asked how many pairs of shoes he's sold?
"People ask the price, but it's not discount price or anything. So who's going to buy here?" he said.
Right now, his deli name displayed in small print on the side of the building is the loophole used to place a mega billboard for Target above. And the deli man says he has no choice or input, even though it's his name that makes the billboard at least nominally legal.
"We're just doing it because we rent the spaces from the building, so I don't have no right to demand anything," he said. He didn't want to give us his name.
On Second Avenue, Montana can advertise the wonders of Big Sky Country with a mega billboard because the advertising company asked the owner of AmCan Travel inside the office building if she'd like to have her name on the building.
"(The company said,) 'We're just going to put your name there at no cost to you, how's that?"' said Am Can owner Barbara Robinson. "It's a sweetheart deal. (I) said, 'OK."'
So who is the architect of these sweetheart deals? The company is called Total Outdoor. Its principles Bill Ackerley and Frank Podany have long been players in the outdoor advertising arena. But no one from Total Outdoor has returned KOMO's calls or responded to our requests for an interview.
One of the worst cases is visible from way down on Fourth Avenue.
"It's greedy," said condo owner Joe Rajewski. The billboard is right outside his living room window. Rajewski took pictures as it went up one weekend. And where there used to be an old see-through sign with no lights, Rajewski said, "What I got now is a sign I can't really see through any more. I've got lights that glare into my unit."
"And the worst thing is they just did it with like, they were just indifferent; they just didn't care," said Rajewski.
The city has tried to enforce what laws there are. The city told Total Outdoor the company couldn't put up the billboard next to Escala condos.
"Our inspector was out there, caught them, said, 'Stop. This is illegal,"' said Sugimura. "They went ahead anyway."
The city sued Total Outdoor to take down a mega sign in Sodo. Years later, it is still there.
Said Clark: "I don't think we can say 'OK, we know someone is obviously gaming the rules and breaking the rules, and it's OK to just let that continue and go by."'
Clark proposed a new, tougher law that went nowhere. She admits she's fighting an uphill battle when city priorities only pay for a single sign inspector. But she's not giving up.
"I think we have to get serious about the fines that we charge for not obeying the rules," she said.
There's a huge incentive to skirt the rules as a single mega billboard in downtown Seattle is estimated to bring in as much as $25,000 a month. And if a business is fined it could be after years of litigation and typically doesn't cost the sign companies more than a few thousand dollars. Clark hopes to propose a new law early next year.
What could be for sale sit behind a locked door, inside a covered-up storefront stacked floor to ceiling with junk. Or they sit in a market open for just four hours a week off of a urine-soaked back alley. Or they are in the lobby of a restricted access apartment building.
As shady as all this looks, they're not selling drugs or black-market goods. But for a couple hours at a time at different locations all over the city, a man who wouldn't identify himself will sell you a $20 Apple gift card, Iceland Air gift cards or Target gift cards.
But the truth is he's not really trying to sell anything; he's just a pawn in a game of strategy between big money outdoor advertisers and the city of Seattle.
And the city? Well, it's losing.
Says Seattle Director of Planning and Development Diane Sugimura: "They're probably pushing the law pretty far."
By nominally selling a product that's sort of connected to the billboard outside, advertisers believe they've found a loophole in city law, one that allows them to slide mega billboards into spots where city laws have never allowed any billboards before.
"Finding loopholes, finding ways to manipulate the system -- that's something that really, that's not OK," said Seattle City Council President Sally Clark.
So far, the advertisers are winning and the game is worth millions.
"There seems to be people who can just go slap anything they want up and then just say, 'So? Sue us,"' said Paula Rees, an environmental designer by trade and an outdoor sign activist by vocation.
Rees says mega billboards are exploding on the Seattle horizon that has seen 10 new monolithic-sized signs in just the past few months. None of them are strictly permitted as billboards; instead they skirt the rules by pretending to be a sign advertising products sold within the building where they are displayed.
"And I think the industry knows right now that they can play because there's nobody who can police," said Rees.
For instance, over the past years, a small deli owner off Third Avenue downtown says he's been told to sell gift cards, cheesy plastic cups, even hiking boots. When asked how many pairs of shoes he's sold?
"People ask the price, but it's not discount price or anything. So who's going to buy here?" he said.
Right now, his deli name displayed in small print on the side of the building is the loophole used to place a mega billboard for Target above. And the deli man says he has no choice or input, even though it's his name that makes the billboard at least nominally legal.
"We're just doing it because we rent the spaces from the building, so I don't have no right to demand anything," he said. He didn't want to give us his name.
On Second Avenue, Montana can advertise the wonders of Big Sky Country with a mega billboard because the advertising company asked the owner of AmCan Travel inside the office building if she'd like to have her name on the building.
"(The company said,) 'We're just going to put your name there at no cost to you, how's that?"' said Am Can owner Barbara Robinson. "It's a sweetheart deal. (I) said, 'OK."'
So who is the architect of these sweetheart deals? The company is called Total Outdoor. Its principles Bill Ackerley and Frank Podany have long been players in the outdoor advertising arena. But no one from Total Outdoor has returned KOMO's calls or responded to our requests for an interview.
One of the worst cases is visible from way down on Fourth Avenue.
"It's greedy," said condo owner Joe Rajewski. The billboard is right outside his living room window. Rajewski took pictures as it went up one weekend. And where there used to be an old see-through sign with no lights, Rajewski said, "What I got now is a sign I can't really see through any more. I've got lights that glare into my unit."
"And the worst thing is they just did it with like, they were just indifferent; they just didn't care," said Rajewski.
The city has tried to enforce what laws there are. The city told Total Outdoor the company couldn't put up the billboard next to Escala condos.
"Our inspector was out there, caught them, said, 'Stop. This is illegal,"' said Sugimura. "They went ahead anyway."
The city sued Total Outdoor to take down a mega sign in Sodo. Years later, it is still there.
Said Clark: "I don't think we can say 'OK, we know someone is obviously gaming the rules and breaking the rules, and it's OK to just let that continue and go by."'
Clark proposed a new, tougher law that went nowhere. She admits she's fighting an uphill battle when city priorities only pay for a single sign inspector. But she's not giving up.
"I think we have to get serious about the fines that we charge for not obeying the rules," she said.
There's a huge incentive to skirt the rules as a single mega billboard in downtown Seattle is estimated to bring in as much as $25,000 a month. And if a business is fined it could be after years of litigation and typically doesn't cost the sign companies more than a few thousand dollars. Clark hopes to propose a new law early next year.
Here is the funny part... It would seem to be perfectly legitimate to put up signs that big if they are advertising the business that occupies the space. So what does it matter that the ads are in reference to other products or services? The signs would still be allowed to be that big. I think KOMO wants to try to throw the companies that they compete with (for ad dollars) under the bus.
Â
I say good for the sign companies to find legal ways around a code that is in no way content neutral and dictates the size the sign can be based on what it advertises.Â
So many of these laws are written without much thought or checking to see what the loopholes might be. Perhaps its time to slow down and write fewer laws but put teeth in them. With all of the lawyers the political system has it seems to me they should be able to point out the weak places in these laws.
This just makes me want to not patron these stores.Â
A friend of mine lives on the South side of Escala. She took photos of the new sign that went up, and saw the Stop Work order being ignored. She had a city inspector come by an take her photos and statement. The inspector noted the electrical cords laying on the roof to power the no-permit lights. Why doesn't the fire department stop that at least? No electrical permit and certainly not to code. I could not sell a house or have a renter with those conditions. Also, this article does not mention the shady layers of ownership behind these sign companies either. We did some digging, including checking with the city tax files, and it is practically impossible to tie any of this to any individual...it is all done by shady organizations. If KOMO really wants to stand up for the citizens on this...dig for names. My bet is they folks behind this are closely tied to the city politically, and the city enjoys the tax revenue.Â
Sad state of affairs for sure.
A nice piece of reporting whether people like it or not.
This comment has been deleted
If I don't like commercials when I watch tv, why does somebody think that they need to make 'commercials' out of buildings. Fix the loophole please and get rid of these things. They just make the city look trashy.
Did they consent to obey the rule? Â Who said? Â A City can make regulations and municipal code, and that creates a legal framework for all those who consent. Â For those who do not, there is no consent. Â Done.
Tracy Vedder really needs to do her own "fact check" before given another opportunity to misrepresent the truth on TV. If you're familiar with the advertising industry in Seattle, then you would know she randomly points out locations operated by several companies and then just before she walks into one companies office declares, "Who's the architect of these sweetheart deals? The company is called Total Outdoor". Your facts are wrong Tracy. Which with credible, trusted news outlets, gets you into trouble when you report them. There are many companies in Seattle, including Clear Channel, who have these advertising locations that you demonize even though they are legal. And as so many on this comment thread point out, what's your point? Seriously, read all the comments below and convince me this story was even worth listening to. Maybe your next one will actually be about how evil the water is when a boat's full of holes...
Fix the loophole then complain ... if people own the building then too bad...it is a city and not a suburb... those large signs are something I associate with the big city... not that I venture into Seattle like ever but that as we say is that
Why can't we just allow private property owners to do whatever they want on their private property, unless they are causing direct physical harm to someone else?  It's not my business what signs you put on your property, and it shouldn't be the City's, either.  If what they are doing is legal, why is this an issue?  It's like the old Assault Weapons Ban:  gun makers modified their guns to comply with the law, and were breathlessly accused of "cheating!" because they didn't immediately stop selling all semi-automatic rifles.
About as ugly as election signs. Still waiting for some to be picked up. (Hint..Rod McKenna).
I mean Rob.
Surprised they are not covered in graffiti.
Write better laws/codes that don't have "loop holes." These companies are doing nothing wrong because the city poorly worded their mandates. Don't blame the water when a boat with holes sinks.Â
Geeze Seattle government, like taking candy from a baby...
Holly crap. KOMO's big bad azz problem solvers are really on to something big here. What a total waste.
This comment has been deleted
 @northwestsurfer  @Stryker  Maybe Stryker chose that word because there's nothing "Holy" about the story.  Oh Gawd...Grammar police..what a bunch of morons
I dont recall calling anyone an idiot. I even searched, I dont see where I wrote that. Phonics and grammar are completely different from each other. Grammar has nothing to do with spelling, phonics does - that was my point. I was not arguing whether or not phonics was a good or bad teaching method. Do you wish to continue splitting hairs?
 @northwestsurfer   Seriously? Phonics is NOT = spelling. Phonics is a (terrible) teaching method used to sometimes teach spelling. So, before you call someone an idiot, use a dictionary.Â
@Richard Burton @Stryker Ok, if you want to chastise me for proper sentence structure, then you should first have a general understanding of the difference between grammar and phonics. I wasnt correcting grammar, I was correcting his spelling, or phonics. Grammar is choice of words, not spelling.
Moron is a term for someone stupid or uneducated; so it would seem to me that a moron would not know the difference between phonics and grammar. Come with a better argument.
I don't see a problem here. I just don't get it.
You own a condo in Downtown Seattle? You're one of the filthy 1%! Who cares about you?
@Mumblix Grumph Still mad you live in Fife?
Fife is way better than Seattle.Â
 @northwestsurfer  @Bianca What about Tarp World in Sumner, just off hyway 167? Thats my favorite!! Blue tarp=Shelton flag! LOL!! (Its ok, I live in Shelton!)  ; )
@Bianca Last time I drove past Kanopy Kingdom on the surface road, and the casino, I would have to disagree.
Seattle: Hire better City Attorneys.
 @bagsofdirt If it wasn't for attorney's, we wouldn't need attorney's.
Greed and evil announce themselves in many guises...
Good grief! The advertising around these days is just plain out of control now more than ever, and it will probably only get worse. Hoping they get some new laws. Makes me glad I don't live in the city.
This is hysterical really. It's the free enterprise system at work and it's making the the left-wing guys angry because they don't get to control or profit from these billboards. That's what it all comes down to - money.
 @JoeKing2 If someone put up a gigantic eyesore of a billboard 20 yards from my window, I would be taking a hatchet to it.
now that people know how (thanks, Komo), and that they can. I'm sure there will be more building owners trying to bring in an extra 25k a month for signs.
"Our inspector was out there, caught them, said, 'Stop. This is illegal,"' said Sugimura. "They went ahead anyway."
Â
If there was only a readily available group of people, usually armed, who take such scofflaws and put them in buildings with limited egress till matters are settled...
@unobtanium Would that be with or without gratuitously beating them and threateneing to make things up>?
 @WoodswalkerÂ
Â
depends on their attitude...