Aerial advertising is not a threat

Kristen Paul Bonifacio, Opinions Editor

To protect our state’s scenic beauty, outdoor advertisements are heavily controlled, and our island prides itself in being one of only four states that prohibit billboards.

So when a mainland aerial advertising company decided to fly one of its planes over O‘ahu, locals were angered that this was ruining Hawaii’s natural beauty. However, this issue is being blown out of proportion. The plane is not a threat to our islands’ beauty, and it’s time that Hawaii reevaluates its law on aerial advertising.

THE ROOT OF CONFLICT

It’s been a month since the New Jersey-based aerial advertising company Aerial Banners North first flew its advertisement plane across O‘ahu’s skies. Since then, the plane has continued to be sighted towing banners that read “Marry me Rachel” and “Advertising isn’t just for politicians.”

The company is doing this in violation of Hawaii’s law regarding aerial advertising. Any form of aerial advertising has been prohibited in our islands since 1978. In 2005, then-gov. Linda Lingle signed a law that further toughened outdoor advertising.

According to Aerial Banners North, the company received a waiver from the Federal Aviation Administration allowing it to operate in Hawaii. Since federal law has supremacy over state law, the company believes that they are authorized to continue their business.

BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION

This issue was handled poorly by the state. It was unnecessary for Mayor Kirk Caldwell to advise locals to contact 911 to report any sightings of the company’s yellow plane. The issue is not severe enough that it warrants a call to an emergency telephone number.

The mayor also stated “natural beauty in our state is a top priority,” yet he supports the Honolulu Rail Transit Project. Despite the benefits or drawbacks of the rail system, it will affect Hawaii’s natural beauty. And if our island’s beauty is the concern, then addressing issues that affect our state’s land should be the priority, not those that affect our skies.

Aircraft advertising is also less of an eyesore than ads on city buses, which have been proposed by the mayor as a form of revenue for the state. Aircraft advertising can be limited to a single or a few aircraft, while ads could be placed on more than 500 city buses.

Furthermore if distraction is a concern then the hundred of political ads on fences should be a topic of discussion.

FINDING A MIDDLE GROUND

The actions taken by Aerial Banner North in violation of Hawaii law is a great time for our state to reevaluate its aerial advertising law. Since Hawaii has one of the highest state debts in the country, according to a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, the government should recognize the revenue that the advertising industry can provide.

And the issue of aerial advertising doesn’t have to be a black and white conflict.  A form of tax can be established on aerial advertising, and the state can create numerous restrictions that ensures miniscule nuances, while allowing for the operation of aerial advertising.

Specific regulations on length of time in the air, size and content of the banner, elevation levels from the ground and off-limit areas can all be established that can satisfy both those living in our state and companies hoping do to business in Hawaii.

The negative reaction to this aerial advertising issue is irrelevant. Aerial Banner North might have violated Hawaii’s law regarding aerial advertising, but it is not causing any distress, nor is it a harm to Hawaii’s natural beauty.

Issues such as graffiti, potholes and homelessness are not only more concerning, but they also impact our state’s image more than an aircraft pulling a banner. 

- Source:  http://www.kaleo.org/opinion