Safety On Trent Should Prevail

Spokane County is in the worst kind of quandary, having to choose which of two excellent objectives to pursue at the other’s expense.

It’s a case of safety vs. scenery, though, and putting it in those terms makes the decision clearer. Protection of human life has to take precedence.

Thus, when county commissioners settle the issue Tuesday, they should make sure that safety improvements proceed as planned along a notoriously dangerous stretch of Trent in the Spokane Valley.

That will mean creating some way around a county ordinance, enacted last November, that bans new billboards along nonurban roads in the unincorporated parts of Spokane County.

At the same time, commissioners should persist in their determination, reflected in last fall’s bold move, to phase out eyesore signage along county roadways.

Trent is a state highway and the state Department of Transportation has identified it as a high-accident corridor, due in large part to frequent rear-end collisions involving cars that slow to make a left turn. The state is ready to widen the highway by adding a turn lane.

That plan would require expanding onto land now owned by Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway and leased by billboard companies. Fourteen of the roadway signs would have to be removed for the highway-safety work to proceed.

At the philosophical level, the answer is easy: Condemn the billboards; widen the road. That would enhance not only motorist safety but also the view of the Dishman Hills.

Unfortunately, you don’t solve real-world problems at the philosophical level. You have to factor in politics, and legalities, and finances.

To condemn the billboards would expose the county to prolonged litigation over compensation to the billboard companies for the property being condemned. That could cost the state as much as $5 million and, as a practical matter, the Department of Transportation would scrub the Trent project and spend its money enhancing other motorists’ safety elsewhere in the state.

The billboard owners have agreed to spare the state that ordeal by simply moving the 14 signs a little farther south, re-erecting them out of the way of the wider highway but still right beside it. That option, however, runs smack into the 7-month-old ban on new billboards.

It’s a frustrating situation for forward-thinking officials who appreciate an uncluttered view of the region’s natural beauty. But the fact is, standing on principle will not accomplish either aim, safety or scenery.

The threat of a costly court showdown and compensation bill will kill the highway-widening project, without which there is no reason to move the billboards. However, moving the billboards would clear the way for safety improvements.

That’s a reasonable decision for now, but it needn’t be the end of the issue.

When the billboard ban was enacted last fall, commissioners also directed staff to come up with a plan for phasing out existing billboards over a period of years - long enough to let owners amortize their investment.

The commissioners can provide for highway safety now, and still push the beautification goal - a little farther down the road.