Et tu, Salas?

Render mockup of electronic billboard in downtown San Jose. Image by Orange Barrel Media

District 3 residents were recently surprised that their interim, appointed councilmember, Carl Salas, ignored overwhelming D3 opposition to electronic billboards downtown, and gave thumbs up to the environmentally dubious proposal. Community feedback (edited for brevity) below.

They limited them to District 3 because they don't want them anywhere that their constituents live. They got Salas to go along because he has no constituents in most of D3; and, anyways, the ones he does have aren't very well off, so why would he or anyone of them even care? Salas was handpicked for this purpose; and apparently after losing a little sleep, or so he said, he sold District 3 down the river. Expect more of that in the next three months, maybe more.

—SJ Spotlight reader comment on digital billboard story

In regards to the CEQA for the proposed LED billboards, I see no reference to 28C.FR.35.151 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is well known that the LED digital billboards interfere with the path of travel for individuals with neurological disabilities such as autism, epilepsy, migraines, and photophobia. An act of alteration—adding the digital billboards—requires an analysis by the city to evaluate and ensure that the altered area is readily accessible  and usable by individuals with disabilities. I see no analysis in this report.

—Mark Baker, president of Soft Lights Foundation, letter to SJ City Council

Go Deeper:

• Understanding why City of SJ's citizen outreach efforts don't deliver real input
• Vulgar billboards won't revitalize San Jose, says downtown leader
• 2024 takeaway #3: Local gov't becoming less representative, increasingly out-of-touch with popular will

Dear Mayor Mahan and SJ City Council members:

I am writing to urge you to oppose any new billboard proposals in our community.

• The public opposes new billboards—Remember the city's own survey with over 2,000 respondents showed 90% opposition to billboards? Bottom line—the public is not asking for billboards in San Jose.

• Insignificant revenue—City staff estimates that the annual proceeds from all the billboards combined would be about $1 million annually; that is a tiny fraction of 1% of the city's annual revenue. Is it worth the tradeoff for more visual blight and an assault on our quality of life?

• Takedown of blighted conventional billboards! Remember that was the major argument at the Feb 2022 City Council  meeting? Ironically, the downtown digitals sites being proposed are exempt from the takedown requirement. Talk about a bait-and-switch!

• The myth of so-called "urban vibrancy" are just talking points from the billboard industry.  There is no evidence that urban billboards on public buildings downtown would be good for the economy; it's more than likely that just the opposite would happen. Billboards all over downtown will drive people away.

—Ryan H. Smith , Districts 3 & 6, letter to SJ City Council

Read more letters to the city on electronic billboards here and here.

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity

Sign up to receive updates on Opp Now articles

Email Address:

First Name:

Last Name:

We prize letters from our thoughtful readers. Typed on a Smith Corona. Written in longhand on fine stationery. Scribbled on a napkin. Hey, even composed on email. Feel free to send your comments to us at opportunitynowsv@gmail.com or (snail mail) 1590 Calaveras Ave., SJ, CA 95126. Remember to be thoughtful and polite. We will post letters on an irregular basis on the main Opp Now site.