Charlotte's largest billboard company is wanting to remove trees that are blocking their adverstisments. Adams Outdoor Advertising has submitted 21 applications to remove these trees. On March 1, a law went into effect that gives companies more leeway to clear vegetation that obscures roadside signs. In some cases only a small hand full of trees need removal. However, in other cases as many as 92 trees need to be cut down. Many enviromentalists want these trees to stay. Some feel that the billboard itself should be moved, not the trees. Adams Advertising argues that companies pay them to post billboards to advertise their product. The trees that may be chopped down will make billboards more noticeable and seen by tens of thousands of motorists each day. They are simply trying to do their job. The city has a 30-day window to comment on the applications, which will be reviewed by the N.C. Department of Transportation.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/03/13/3093148/charlotte-company-files-first.html#storylink=cpy
I do see where the companies' complaints are coming from, and they make perfect sense, but by destroying trees in order make an advertisement more visible does not seem like the best choice. For one, the trees themselves should not be cut down fully. Maybe a "trimming" would solve the problem instead of elimating the entire tree. Although it would cost more money, the better solution would be to find new locations and relocate certain billboards that cannot be seen due to relatively large trees. Relocating these signs would be the best choice because it would save up the 92 trees, and more, that are threatened to be cut down only because they "post a threat" to companies. By simply changing the location to a more visible location on the side of a highway would be the better choice because the paying companies' advertisement would be noticeable by many more drivers, and it would save numerous trees from being cut down.
ReplyDeleteFor me, I know what it means to get your point across, in an advertisement. So I can see where the advertising company is coming from when they want to see their advertisement seen. Although, I see where the company is coming from, I strongly dis encourage the company from cutting down trees. There is plenty of space available to use to put up an advertisement, simply chose a different location if its causing so much controversy. If you think about it 92 trees is a lot of space, I would solve the problem by moving the location of the advertisement and safe a lot of trouble with tree huggers.
ReplyDeleteFor me, I know what it means to get your point across, in an advertisement. So I can see where the advertising company is coming from when they want to see their advertisement seen. Although, I see where the company is coming from, I strongly dis encourage the company from cutting down trees. There is plenty of space available to use to put up an advertisement, simply chose a different location if its causing so much controversy. If you think about it 92 trees is a lot of space, I would solve the problem by moving the location of the advertisement and safe a lot of trouble with tree huggers.
ReplyDeleteI have a two sided opinion. I think it's a good idea to cut down the trees so that people can see the advertisements more clearly. But I also think that the trees being cut down need to be used in a way to help something. I don't think it should just be burned or something like that. But I think it should be used to donate paper to a school or help use it for a place in need of wood or wood products.
ReplyDeleteI think its the billboard companies fault in the first place. They should have bought better land to have billboards put up at rather than right in a heavily wooded area. I believe a good solution may be a compromise of having a few trees cut down in exchange for the billboard company to pay for the planting of new trees close by.
ReplyDeleteFrom a business perspective, the company is just trying to do its job. Maybe the lot is their property and in that case they should be able to do what they want with it. Workers there have to go home to and provide for their families. If it means chopping down a few trees in the way, then they are not going to be bothered by it. On the other hand, those that are offended by the cutting down of their precious trees should ask a favor of the company, maybe the two sides can agree on something. I recommend that the company promise to plant the number of trees they chop down somewhere else that is not in the way of the signs. And like Kelsey said, use what they cut for something useful instead of wasting the trees. I believe that if both sides really tried, they could reach an agreement.
ReplyDeleteI think that the company has a right to want the trees down and should be able to remove them if they feel the need to, but it will also harm the environment greatly. I believe the companies and the people who want the trees to stay should come to some sort of agreement such as maybe cutting down some of the trees and choosing a different location for some of their billboards. This way not as many trees are cut down and the companies are still able to advertise to people without harming the environment as much as they would if all of the trees were cut down. If they cut down that many trees though it could make a lot of people upset and hurt the community around that area. I agree with pretty much everyone in saying that they should just try to come to some sort of agreement.
ReplyDeleteThat is awful! Companies should not be allowed to have more leeway on cutting down trees. I understand that certain trees are blocking the companies billboard advertisements and that the billboards are a better way for companies to get customers, but those trees were there first. I agree with the environmentalists. The companies shouldn’t have built billboards on areas of land that was accompanied by that many trees. I think that there should be a limit placed on the companies that there can’t be any more than a certain number of trees in the area where they want to put a billboard. That way, it would limit the amount of trees being cut down.
ReplyDeleteI can see both sides and why they think what they do. The business is really just trying to do what is best for them regardless of the effect on the trees. They want to make money and to make money people have to know who you are AKA advertisements! I think it is hard to think about something like trees when you are trying to keep your business up and running. I also see where everyone else is coming from. I think that there are many solutions to this issue and killing trees is not the best one. It may be the last resort, but not the only option. I think it is a little ridiculous to say they should move he billboard. I think the company is looking for a more cost efficient way of making the advertising more visible and moving a billboard vs. chopping down trees I think we al know which is cheaper. I agree with Devin though I think that maybe just a trimming of the trees would do the trick.
ReplyDeleteLike everyone else, I can see where both sides are coming from. But I can personally say that while I'm driving down the road, I usually don't pay attention to billboards. The only time a sign makes me what to buy something is if it's a rest stop or a sign put up by the state about food on the next exit. If we have cut down tons of trees just to put a highway somewhere, why should we cut down even more to put up a sign that maybe half the people on the road will even look at. Now I understand people need to get their advertising out somehow, but billboards are SO boring, they need to come up with a new way of getting peoples attention, something more fun. Maybe that's what you can come up with Parker!
ReplyDeleteI can understand why the company wants to chop down the trees. The companies that put up the billboards have to spend there money for advertising what they are selling. But with the tree covering up the billboards motorist can’t see them and therefore are not paying attention to what is being advertise. What I think should happen is Adams Advertising should compromise with the N.C. Department of Transportation. Even if then N.C. Department of Transportation don’t agree to chop down the trees instead they should tell Adams Advertising that instead of agreeing to chop down the tree we will allow them to cut branches low enough so than the billboards will become visible to motorists. They could even cut down a few trees that are blocking the billboards and leave some of them still standing. This way we aren’t destroying nature completely and we are also helping out by using the trees for other resources, such as making a billboard.
ReplyDelete