It’s been almost a century since an environmental group lobbied hard for, and won, a concession aimed at keeping Hawaii’s scenic views unfettered by roadside signs. Hawaii is one of only four states to ban billboards, and it was the first. The islands have this organization, The Outdoor Circle, to thank for that.

Now the drive to develop the 98-acre New Aloha Stadium Entertainment District (NASED) is powering up, and its planners would like an exemption from the law defining signage options.

Senate Bill 3197 would add to the exemptions already on the books for advertisement within the stadium and attached to its scoreboard. The measure proposes that allowances include “any billboard or outdoor advertising device, displayed with the authorization of the Aloha Stadium Authority, within the stadium development district.”

The bill would allow advertising on the sides of buildings, said state Sen. Glenn Wakai, majority floor leader and one of the sponsors of the measure. Wakai added that this allowance would “align perfectly” with the request for proposals seeking developer bids.

Undoubtedly, developers would like having all the options open to them, but this is not a reason to approve a broad exemption to such a long-standing billboard ban. Hearings on SB 3197 have not yet been scheduled, but the Senate can expect significant community pushback.

Testifiers are sure to include some who would want no exemptions of any kind. But at the very least, the state should not issue a blanket approval without any idea of design the developers have in mind.

Wakai said he consulted with stadium management and the Stadium Authority chair about the bill. But it is telling that at least one Stadium Authority board member, Claire Tamamoto, was surprised to learn about the bill only after it passed first reading last week.

Tamamoto is also a community leader in neighboring Aiea, where residents have reasonable worries about how the Halawa stadium district will look.

“I don’t know if it will blend well. A lot would depend on dimensions and other factors,” she said.

That’s correct. At a minimum, any exemptions to the signage law need to be fully fleshed out, and the community should be given a voice. That means that SB 3197 should be shelved now.

As currently written (see 808ne.ws/billboardlaw), the law essentially focuses on restricting billboards or other outdoor advertising devices off the premises of that business. In addition to the exemption for large signs within the stadium, there are also allowances for outdoor signs.

These include official notices posted “in performance of a public duty,” approved noncommercial signs promoting cultural or scenic points of interest, and grandfathered billboards continually maintained before July 9, 1965.

The broad billboard exemption proposed by SB 3197 is concerning, even if it applies only within the stadium district, because of the precedent it would set.

Advertising is meant to draw attention visually, so competing businesses outside that district are sure to seek some kind of accommodation. This exemption is likely to increase pressure on government to further loosen the restriction in other areas.

Billboards proliferated in Hawaii, especially on Oahu, in the early 1900s. “In 1926, after years of consumer actions and boycotts, The Outdoor Circle persuaded the Territorial Legislature to pass Hawaii’s law banning billboards in the islands,” according to a brochure published on the organization’s website.

That battle was too hard-fought to cede Hawaii’s no-billboards advantage now. Residents who agree should testify, rather than let The Outdoor Circle do all the work.