Night Hawk
10-09-2004, 09:36 PM
Viewing the signs as a corporate blemish on Seattle's cityscape, the recently formed group -- residents who live, work or travel near the stadium and collectively call themselves, Save Our Skyline -- yesterday sued Qwest Communications and the city of Seattle, among others.
The lawsuit claims Qwest, with the aid of city bureaucrats, has illegally marred the city's pristine, water- and mountain-framed skyline with corporate grotesqueries, and the suit seeks to rid the city of the signs forever.
"The gut feeling is, people don't want to be living in Tokyo or Times Square here," said Knoll Lowney, the Seattle attorney who filed the suit, referring to those urban areas many would contend have been overrun by advertising.
Although a Qwest spokeswoman declined comment about the lawsuit yesterday, Seattle City Attorney Tom Carr said he expects it will be tossed out of court.
According to the lawsuit, the Qwest Field signs are now the largest advertisements in Seattle. They're more than 4,000 square feet each, Lowney said.
They are so big, they can be seen from Interstate 5 and many downtown buildings; and from neighborhoods stretching from Beacon Hill to First Hill to Yesler Way.
They're so big, the suit argues, that "future skyline photographs of Seattle will literally contain a Qwest logo."
But the signs' sheer size isn't the group's only argument of why they should be removed. It also says the city and Qwest pulled an end-run around a city ordinance that would have prevented the signs from going up in the first place.
According to the suit, the city's Department of Planning and Development first rejected a request from Qwest -- soon after the company acquired the naming rights for the stadium in June -- to erect roof signs.
The application was rebuffed because the signs would have constituted ordinance-prohibited advertisements for Qwest's telecommunications services, rather than serve as signs for an on-site business.
To elude the law, the suit contends, the city on Aug. 11 granted Qwest's application to establish a 10-foot-by-11-foot booth within the stadium, which would allow the company to put up the signs.
Then, on the same day, the city granted Qwest permission to erect the two roof signs.
The signs should be seen as off-premises advertisements, the suit contends, because they are designed to promote Qwest's services generally, and not any small Qwest "business" that may exist within the stadium.
The suit also says the city permits that were issued failed to comply with the state Environmental Policy Act.
And, even if the signs constitute "on-premises" advertising, the suit says, they are too large under the Seattle Municipal Code, which states that spectator sports facilities with seats for 40,000 or more may be limited to two "identification signs," with a maximum total area limited to 3,000 square feet.
The Qwest roof signs, Lowney said, exceed 8,000 square feet.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/football/192907_qwest29.html
The lawsuit claims Qwest, with the aid of city bureaucrats, has illegally marred the city's pristine, water- and mountain-framed skyline with corporate grotesqueries, and the suit seeks to rid the city of the signs forever.
"The gut feeling is, people don't want to be living in Tokyo or Times Square here," said Knoll Lowney, the Seattle attorney who filed the suit, referring to those urban areas many would contend have been overrun by advertising.
Although a Qwest spokeswoman declined comment about the lawsuit yesterday, Seattle City Attorney Tom Carr said he expects it will be tossed out of court.
According to the lawsuit, the Qwest Field signs are now the largest advertisements in Seattle. They're more than 4,000 square feet each, Lowney said.
They are so big, they can be seen from Interstate 5 and many downtown buildings; and from neighborhoods stretching from Beacon Hill to First Hill to Yesler Way.
They're so big, the suit argues, that "future skyline photographs of Seattle will literally contain a Qwest logo."
But the signs' sheer size isn't the group's only argument of why they should be removed. It also says the city and Qwest pulled an end-run around a city ordinance that would have prevented the signs from going up in the first place.
According to the suit, the city's Department of Planning and Development first rejected a request from Qwest -- soon after the company acquired the naming rights for the stadium in June -- to erect roof signs.
The application was rebuffed because the signs would have constituted ordinance-prohibited advertisements for Qwest's telecommunications services, rather than serve as signs for an on-site business.
To elude the law, the suit contends, the city on Aug. 11 granted Qwest's application to establish a 10-foot-by-11-foot booth within the stadium, which would allow the company to put up the signs.
Then, on the same day, the city granted Qwest permission to erect the two roof signs.
The signs should be seen as off-premises advertisements, the suit contends, because they are designed to promote Qwest's services generally, and not any small Qwest "business" that may exist within the stadium.
The suit also says the city permits that were issued failed to comply with the state Environmental Policy Act.
And, even if the signs constitute "on-premises" advertising, the suit says, they are too large under the Seattle Municipal Code, which states that spectator sports facilities with seats for 40,000 or more may be limited to two "identification signs," with a maximum total area limited to 3,000 square feet.
The Qwest roof signs, Lowney said, exceed 8,000 square feet.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/football/192907_qwest29.html