The Virginia enterprise. [volume] (Virginia, St. Louis County, Minn.) 1893-19??, 1913-06-20
BILLBOARDS DENOUNCED !.
As UNSI6H1lY NUISANCE
Citizens Protest to Council Against Their
Erection ii Residence District.
Senator Boyle Appears for
Company Interested.

Company Interested.
A. w. Norton, r. c. Pickering and
Dr. J. H. Grove, voiced a vigorous
protest at the regular meeting of
the city council Tuesday night
against the policy of allowing bill
boards to be erected in the res
idence district of the city. Senator
Boyle OF Eveleth, appearing for the
Iron Range Advertising company.
who own the billboards over the
city and those recently consteacted
on Wyoming avenue, which are the
ones against which the protest was
particularly directed presented the
Advertising company's side of the
controversy and the council adopt
ed a committee report following
the debate to the effect that the bill
boards has not been found to be a
nuisance, Alderman McGhee de-
claring that he agreed with the
sentiment of the protest, but did
not believe it was within the power
of the council to remedy matters as
the condition ands at present.
Speaking against billboards be-
ing in the residence district OF the
city A. w. Norton said that he par
ticularly deplored the construction
of one on Wyoming avenue near
his residence because it was dis
figuring influence and he did not
believe the character of the adver-
Using carried was of good moral
tone, especially in view of the fact
that it was located directly across
the street from the Johnson school,
and cigarette and tobacco adver-
Using was carried. He said the city
had spent thousands of dollars in
improving the streets in it's res
idence district and did not believe
it could afford to establish the pre-
cedent of allowing billboards erect.
ed in the residence district. He
called attention also to the fact that
the billboard in question afforded
a shelter to tramps and buns and
was manifestly unsafe. He did not
wish to be arbitrary in the matter
but clearly indicated that he believ-
ed Virginia should do as much as
other cities to suppress the bill
board nuisance.
r. c. Pickering and DR.. J. H. Grove
supported Mr.. Norton's argument
and spoke along similar lines. City
Attorney Morgan who had looked
up the law, did not believe the
council could do anything in the
matter as the advertising company
constructed it's boards on ground
leased from the owners aud that to
order the boards summarily taken
down would be to interfere with the
constitutional rights of property
owner. 1t might by ordinance reg.
ulate the character of advertising
displayed, prescribe certain re.
quirements as to construction and
maintenance, but could not inter
fere with the rights of a property
owner to lease his property for any
purpose for which he saw fit that
was within the bounds of ordinary
reason.
Senator Boyle told the council his
clients desired to work in entire
harmony with the council, guaran-
teed that no Objectionable advertis-
ing would be displayed, said that
bilIboards were not aesthetic or
high art, but it was his opinion the
council could not interfere with the
rights of property-owner to lease
his premises for any purpose with.
in reason which he saw fit.
The matter will probably be nee.
essarily dropped while there is
strong sentiment against what is
characterized locally as the bill.
board nuisance.