If Georgia lawmakers approve a pair of billboard measures, opponents say, signs could sprout in neighborhoods not zoned for them, and state-owned trees could be clear-cut in front of the roadside signs.

Billboard companies say they're only asking for what's fair: just compensation if they have to move a sign, and signs that drivers can see unobstructed.

On Tuesday and Wednesday the two bills passed in committee.

The tree bill (SB 256) has a history in Georgia. The other billboard bill (HB 1318) is similar to one that passed in Florida, to the consternation of local governments there.

The sponsor of HB 1318, Rep. Matt Dollar (R-Marietta), called it "just a private property bill" to compensate sign owners and sign landlords affected by zoning rules, language echoed by billboard lobbyist Vernon Lee.

"It's a good bill; it's a good property rights bill," Lee said.

On its face, the bill would ensure that billboard owners are compensated when they have to move or take down their signs because the land they're on is being taken or developed. If local zoning rules are intended to phase out billboards and prevent rebuilding the same size sign, the bill would put the burden of compensation on that local government.

Lawyers representing cities and counties said billboard owners are compensated under current law, and the real effect of the bill is to cripple local governments' ability to regulate signs.

Under the bill, they said, if the state takes down a billboard to widen a road, and local zoning rules call for the sign to be rebuilt at a smaller, less lucrative size, the local government, not the state road project, would have to compensate the billboard owner and the billboard landlord. The amount they'd have to pay would include all future revenue from advertisers contracting for the sign.

The sums could be so staggering to local budgets that the bill would essentially make restricting those billboards too expensive.

"It's punishing local governments for having good zoning laws," said Bill Brinton, a Florida lawyer who fought that state's version of the law, along with local government organizations there. "It basically overrides local zoning decisions and hijacks local control to elevate a special interest over the public's interest."

Cobb County Commission Chairman Sam Olens said in an interview about the bill, "I'm not building the road, the state is."

In Cobb, if the bill passes, a state project to widen I-75 could put the county and the city of Marietta on the hook for $4.5 million to $75 million in billboard costs.

"The state of Georgia General Assembly is doing a good job of trying to bankrupt local governments," Olens said.

Olens said it makes sense that if a road project takes down a sign, the county should let the sign move to a similar location. But the county should still be able to set zoning limits, he said.

Representatives of the Georgia Municipal Association and the Association County Commissioners of Georgia also spoke against the bill.

The bill had overwhelming support in the House Transportation Committee Tuesday, where members said it seemed a matter of fairness.

Some of them questioned using zoning for beautification. "Explain to me what visual blight is," said Rep. Tom McCall (R-Elberton), challenging a city advocate.

When the advocate suggested that "We-Bare-All" nude entertainment billboards were visual blight, McCall countered, "That's not visual blight to the guy that owns the billboard or the fellow that's paying to go to the we-bare-all place."

Two years ago McCall sponsored another bill to make it easier to cut trees in front of billboards. A variation of that bill passed the Senate Transportation Committee on Wednesday.

It sets the price the billboard company pays the state for the trees they cut at their timber value, as decided by appraisers chosen by the billboard companies.

The tree issue drew the state into years of court battles, during which the state lifted a height limit on billboards so that they could soar above the treetops.

Under the current tree bill, billboard owners would build new signs shorter and would get the right to clear-cut in front of them. While they still wouldn't be allowed to cut historic or endangered trees, current restrictions on cutting large hardwood trees would be lifted.