Holy moly, long meeting!

Did anyone out there follow that insanely long discussion on new billboards at the Grand Forks City Council on Monday? You'd think they were deciding something earth-shattering.

Actually, the council just had to decide whether Newman Outdoor Advertising could put up four new billboards on South Washington Street. Business owners there are up in arms because they say the billboards would detract from their own advertising and, besides that, they say billboards are ugly.

The city planning department agrees. Too much clutter.

But council members favored Newman, giving the company three billboards.

I liked Council member Curt Kreun's explanation. He said Newman is building three new ones to replace three other dilapidated ones that it hadn't dare take down. Under the old billboard law, old billboards could be taken down but not replaced so advertising companies just left them there.

Could Newman have just replaced its old signs in the same location? asked businessman Greg Norman.

Sure, Kreun said, but those signs blocked the view of street entrances. "You want somebody to be killed?"

Maybe it is earth-shattering!

To be fair, the council was struggling to be fair to Newman, to the objecting businesses and, Kreun said, to the businesses that have to put up with the dilapidated signs. Fairness takes a long time.

No kiddin'. It took three years to amend that billboard law. Kreun was on the committee. You shoulda seen his face when Council member Bob Brooks, worried about the fairness of the law, asked that another committee take another look! Man, I'm glad I just report.

Update 11:49 p.m., 6/19/06: I noticed that Dakota was watching the meeting, too. She mentioned something that Council member Gerald Hamerlik pointed out. Hmmm, I could've sworn there was an explanation for this at the Planning and Zoning Commission but I can't recall for the life of me what it was.