Signs of Opposition in Billboard Deal
Groups assail the city attorney's backing of a plan that could allow permits for hundreds of new and existing illegal billboards.
City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo is facing opposition from Los
Angeles beautification advocates for having pushed a
lawsuit settlement that could allow hundreds of new and
existing illegal billboards to get permits.
Critics question Delgadillo's impartiality in negotiating
the deal because sign companies donated $424,000 worth of
billboard space to support his first election in 2001. And
the firms have since contributed thousands more to him and
some of the City Council members who must approve or reject
the settlement.
"Rocky was elected in part because of the billboard
advertisements," said Joyce Foster, chairwoman of the West
Los Angeles Area Planning Commission. "This settlement is
terrible for the city, but it sounds like a fabulous deal
for the billboard companies."
Faced with mounting criticism of the terms, which the
council has tentatively approved, Delgadillo is attempting
to negotiate additional concessions from billboard
companies, including stricter limits on the number of new
signs.
Delgadillo said in a statement that the council and the
mayor would ultimately decide whether to settle the
suit.
"But I believe that the most positive aspects of the
proposed settlements are that we will be increasing public
safety by ensuring the structural integrity of L.A.
billboard signs, a large number of billboards will be
removed, and we are establishing a first-of-its-kind
comprehensive billboard inventory and inspection program to
enable us to better monitor our city's billboards,"
Delgadillo said.
"And these critical reforms will be implemented
immediately, without the specter of continuing protracted
litigation," he added.
Delgadillo spokesman Nick Velasquez said the unsolicited
independent expenditures received from sign companies are
not relevant. He said that Delgadillo has always
"aggressively defended" the city's regulation of the
industry.
Foster and others question why Delgadillo is pushing to
settle the lawsuit ? brought by Clear Channel Outdoor and
CBS Outdoor ? when the city has already won major victories
over the companies in court.
"Delgadillo has a history of being very lenient on the
billboard industry and doing nothing," said Ted Wu, founder
of L.A.'s Citizens to Ban Billboards and Blight. "Instead
of settling, they should enforce the law."
At issue is an ordinance adopted by the City Council in
February 2002 to begin an inspection and enforcement
program aimed at regulating more than 10,000 billboards in
Los Angeles. The ads on the billboards generate more than
$1 billion a year for their owners.
The ordinance, which also imposed permit fees, was adopted
at the same time the council imposed a moratorium on new
billboards.
Councilman Jack Weiss said he proposed the inspection
program and supported the moratorium because building
inspectors did not have enough employees to enforce laws
governing the size and location of billboards.
As a result, the city does not have a firm count of
existing billboards, and officials don't know how many of
them lack permits.
"This was to be a one-two punch against visual blight in
the city, that we would stop the companies from putting up
new signs, and that we would have a new inspection system
to discover and dismantle the illegal signs," Weiss
said.
But a group of billboard companies sued the city, claiming
the regulations infringed on their constitutional right to
free speech and that the proposed fees were
unjustified.
In May, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson
rejected that argument and said the ordinance could also
apply to billboards put up before sign restrictions were
adopted in 1986.
A state judge similarly ruled that the ordinance does not
violate the state Constitution. Other issues, such as the
size of the fee, are pending.
The city had originally proposed an annual fee of $314 per
billboard, which would cover the cost of regular
inspections.
But under the settlement, each billboard would be inspected
once every three years, and the firms would pay an initial
fee of $186, followed by a $184 fee three years later to
cover the second inspection.
"It pays for less-frequent inspection," Weiss said.
Still, Delgadillo's spokesman said a settlement would be
prudent because it would avoid appeals and probably be
tougher than the deal the city attorney originally sent to
the council for approval.
Though the city attorney's office is still negotiating
final details with the two largest firms, the council in
September approved key terms under which the billboard
companies would drop their legal challenges.
Velasquez said the settlement would let the city begin the
inspection program, which has been bottled up in the courts
for four years, while putting a cap on the number of
billboards that are modernized, expanded or retroactively
permitted.
Ken Spiker Jr., a lobbyist for Clear Channel, said the deal
is a good one for both sides because it reduces the red
tape and cost for sign companies while allowing Los Angeles
to get a handle on the number of billboards.
Ryan Brooks, a vice president with CBS Outdoor, agreed.
Weiss said he had hoped the city attorney could have
negotiated a better deal.
"The settlement is not ideal," Weiss said. "But after five
years if the city attorney comes to me and says, 'Do you
want to keep litigating or you want something that can be
implemented,' what choice do I have?"
Under terms approved by the council, Clear Channel Outdoor
and CBS Outdoor, which together own about 4,100 billboards,
would take down 98 structures as well as those put up
without permits after 1998.
That, Velasquez said, could mean that hundreds of
un-permitted billboards would come down, although he was
not sure how many, if any, the measure would cover.
In exchange, the firms would be allowed to modernize up to
840 billboard structures. A structure is a pole that can
have two billboards on it facing opposite directions.
For structures with just one billboard, the original
settlement terms would allow the companies to put up 840
new second sides, but sources said Delgadillo was seeking
to limit that number to 200 or fewer.
Another option that the council provided would be for the
companies to modernize 840 structures with digital or
backlit messages or other signs that change
automatically.
Still another option would allow the firms to get permits
for 840 existing billboards that were put up without
permits before 1999. The firms could also mix and match
from the various options as long as they stayed within the
cap of 840 billboard structures.
"I've never seen anything this lopsided before," said
William D. Brinton, a Florida attorney and executive board
member for the national anti-blight group Scenic
America.
He said the 98 signs that companies would have to take down
in Los Angeles represent the normal annual attrition of
signs in the industry, where every year some property
owners decline to renew leases.
At the same time, billboard companies would be allowed to
legalize signs that were put up without permits.
"It's very possibly rewarding unlawful conduct by giving
the companies something they were not entitled to in the
first place," Brinton said.
Brinton warned that allowing digital light-emitting-diode
signs under the modernization could turn some Los Angeles
neighborhoods into versions of the Las Vegas strip, with
bright displays that can be seen two-thirds of a mile away
and blink to change messages up to every four seconds.
*
See the article on Los Angeles Times website
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)