It’s Back: Digital Billboards on Freeways

AB 1405, the bill that would allow digital signs including advertising on California’s freeways, is back before the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. The author tweaked it to make it more palatable to cities, but it’s still a very bad bill that will open the door for digital ads on stretches of highway where they have never been before. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 26. This is the bill’s final chance to pass this session, so if it fails in committee on Tuesday, it’s done for the year. If you have not weighed in on this–and even if you have–now is the time to act.

What to do: The legislation is AB 1405, The Advanced Digital Network Act, sponsored by Kevin Mullin. It’s before the State Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. Send letters via e-mail to the committee via the secretary Katie Bonin: katie.bonin@sen.ca.gov or fax to 916-445-2209.

Update: Digital Billboards on Freeways

There’s good news about AB 1405, the plan to insert digital billboards among California’s highway road signs. The bill was scheduled for a hearing on Tuesday, June 19 before the State Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, but it was pulled from consideration at the last minute by its sponsor, Assembly Member Kevin Mullin. This means that the threat is over, for now. To all who wrote in to Sacramento to express opposition to AB 1405, thank you. We will remain vigilant, because this monster could come back like a sequel to a Grade B horror movie.

Patrick Frank, President

New Smart Billboards Will Bring “Big Brother” Ads

 

If you needed another reason to oppose digital billboards, this could be it. At least two companies are today creating new digital billboards that use tracking data gathered from cell phones and car GPS devices, linking that data with demographic information, and using all of that data to target digital billboard messages at locations where specific demographic groups congregate.

Yes, that’s right: The companies gather data on what sorts of people pass by the locations with billboards that they control (seniors, Latinos, commuters, youth, males, etc.) at what times of day, and customize their display ads to reach them.

One of the companies, GeoPath, calls itself an “audience location measurement” firm. Here is how they describe what they do: “By processing and incorporating many industry-changing data sources such as connected cars, weather data, population growth factors, and the locations & trips of hundreds of millions of anonymous mobile devices, our systems will be able to do things like respond to seasonal, daily, & hourly variation, provide post-campaign delivery information, and much more.” So if your smartphone has location services enabled for any app at any time, or you are using GPS in your car, GeoPath will suck up that data and use it to target billboard ads to where you are going.

The other firm, Accretive Media, controls more than 100,000 screens across the United States, a number that’s sure to grow. It claims that it has the richest consumer data set available today, “combining people-based consumer profiles with geotemporal mobile information.” Accretive media “balances intelligent targeting with mainstream appeal, leveraging rich deterministic information to make outdoor messages impactful, targeted, and real.”

For example, a heavy rush-hour flow of males between the ages of 18 and 25 might convince a fast-food chain to buy placement on a digital billboard from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m near its locations. These firms are basically doing on billboards what is already done in your web browser: Targeting ads to you based on demographic information and preferences that you show by your internet behavior.

Did you consent to have your information shared this way? It’s already happening.

Digital Ads on Freeways: The Latest Bad Idea

Digital Billboard Ads could be coming to California Freeways if a bill now before the State Senate becomes law. The above picture came from a Caltrans report favoring the idea that was released on April 16. Caltrans has teamed up with a couple of select billboard companies to actually propose this ugly and dangerous idea as a means to raise money by selling ads on highway roadside official signs.

 This is what the ads would look like. Alongside the usual traffic notices, or even mileage distances, we would get changing digital advertising alongside Caltrans controlled freeways. The proposal so far is for a pilot project, but even this idea should be shot down before it gets any further. Caltrans justifies the trial by pointing to the FHWA study which allegedly found that digital billboards are safe. But we all know that that study was never properly peer-reviewed, is flawed, and is outdated because of the increasing in-cockpit driver distractions that come from on-board touch screens, direction finders, and cell phones.

More recent 2015 studies have found that digital billboards resulted in 25% to 29% higher crash rates near such signs in two states, Alabama and Florida. So Caltrans and the billboard companies are deliberately putting drivers and passengers in danger with this proposal.

Caltrans does not even need the money. The state budget has been in surplus for several years, even while the rainy day fund increases.

And California drivers do not need the distraction, danger, and mere ugliness of more ads.

What to do: The legislation is AB 1405, The Advanced Digital Network Act. Right now it’s before the State Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, chaired by Jim Beall. Send letters via e-mail to the committee via the secretary Katie Bonin: katie.bonin@sen.ca.gov or fax to 916-445-2209.

Draft Citywide Sign Ordinance: It’s Ridiculous

The City Council Planning and Land Use Management Committee (PLUM) has finally come up with the text of a proposed Citywide Sign Ordinance, and it realizes many of our worst fears.

The new bill (Council File 11-1705) unveiled on Dec. 12, allows new digital signs outside the high-density commercial Sign Districts. Specifically, it allows such billboards in almost any type of commercially-zoned business property. This means that if the bill passes in its present form, the sign companies could erect a new digital sign, with messages changing every 8 seconds, on nearly any commercial lot that they deem worthy.

It also allows on-site digital signs, which promote the specific company where they are sited, something never envisioned in previous drafts of this legislation.

The numerous studies that show a correlation between digital billboards and driver distraction that causes collisions are all being ignored by the PLUM committee. Likewise, the committee is ignoring aesthetic and environmental concerns.

But wait, there’s more: Tucked into the language of the bill are a few subtle gifts to sign companies.

There is no prohibition on billboards of any kind, digital or static, in city parks.

Sign companies could request an exemption to the rules and make any sign up to 20% taller or larger.

There’s also a specific exception for the continuation of the huge supergraphic signs in the Greater Downtown Housing Incentive Area, which would be otherwise prohibited elsewhere in the city. This clause of the bill (14.4.24) seems to refer to the supergraphics on the exterior of the Hotel Figueroa, which is located, guess where, in PLUM Chair José Huizar’s district.

In sum: If you care at all about urban aesthetics, traffic safety, environmental light pollution, or energy conservation, then you have literally nothing to cheer about in this legislation. It is not final yet, so in the meantime we will be doing all in our power to deflect this missile before it hits its target, which is your eyeballs. Join us by sending your views to the PLUM Committee (Zina Cheng,  clerk.plumcommittee@lacity.org). Use the Council File number in the subject line, and request that your comments be added to the record.

Patrick Frank, President

Citywide Sign Ordinance: A Struggle Looms

by Patrick Frank

Public safety, aesthetics, and the will of the people continue to get short shrift at the City Council Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee, as it caves to the powerful billboard lobby. After years of hearings and reports, the committee on May 31 gave instructions to the City Attorney to finally draft a new Citywide Sign Ordinance that will govern billboards, known legally as off-site signs (Council File 11-1705). We should all enjoy the dark night skies while we can, because if this bill becomes a law, digital billboards will be going up in all kinds of new places, flashing messages in our faces every 8 seconds.

The committee was working from a draft bill devised by the City Planning Commission (CPC) in late 2015. That draft was a fair compromise between billboard companies, advertisers,  and citizens’ rights to a livable and safe visual environment: It permitted digital billboards only in sign districts located in high-intensity commercial zones. Moreover, a company that wanted to erect a digital billboard it had to take down ten times that square footage in traditional static billboards elsewhere. There was no provision for amnesty for any of the 900-plus static billboards in L.A. that lack effective permits.

That was then. PLUM has turned the CPC recommendations into something unrecognizable. Digital billboards would be permitted both within sign districts and outside them, in any land use zone that includes the word “Commercial,” which would take in most major streets and intersections. The approval process would be through the relatively loose Conditional Use Permit. Instead of a 10:1 takedown ratio, PLUM would institute a sliding scale, from 2:1 to a maximum of 8:1. The difference in each case would come from contributions by sign companies to city-run fund: they could pay more in order to take down less.

The PLUM committee calls this kitty a Billboard Blight Reduction fund, which is deeply ironic. The fees for each billboard would be paid once, but the billboard would reap profits for the company for decades. In effect, PLUM is selling your eyeballs. While the fund is meant to help pay for street improvements, the tradeoff is too great a price to pay for things which the city could and should fund itself through an appropriations process.

There are other plums in this pie for billboard companies. PLUM for the first time introduced language to permit digital on-site signage. This is a new subject worthy of an open and transparent conversation with stakeholders from all communities, as new digital signage on storefronts would radically alter community character in many neighborhoods. There has never been any discussion about a policy to permit digital on-site signs and, in fact, CPC intentionally separated the policy discussions of off-site and on-site signage. PLUM also included a provision to allow digital billboards on city-owned property. In sum, the PLUM instructions would allow digital signs both on businesses and on billboards located almost anywhere a sign company might like to have them.

Besides the obvious aesthetic arguments against digital billboards, a growing number of studies have shown that they contribute heavily to driver distraction and accidents. Thus, this ordinance flies in the face of Vision Zero, the city’s new program for reducing traffic fatalities.

Lurking behind this proposed legislation is a bushel of campaign contributions. Billboard companies in the past have given free advertising space to several of the PLUM committee members (Huizar, Englander, and Harris-Dawson) in support of their election campaigns, and cash contributions to all. In gratitude, PLUM members have practically jumped into their pockets. The final bill will be unveiled sometime this fall.

The CPC, probably shocked at what their legislative proposal has become at PLUM, revoked its delegation of the bill in late July. A highly unusual step in city government, this means that whatever PLUM does will have to go back to the CPC for comment and approval. So this struggle is a long way from over.

Oppose Digital Billboards on Public Property

As part of its dragged-out process of rewriting the ordinances governing billboards citywide, the L.A. City Council Planning and Land Use Management Committee (PLUM) is about to receive a report on how the city can install digital billboards on city-owned property. Today I submitted the following memo for the record in opposition to this idea. If you don’t want to see billboards on city-owned buildings and properties, send an e-mail to the PLUM assistant: clerk.plumcommittee@lacity.org and ask them to add your message to the public record in Council File 11-1705.

To the Members of the PLUM Committee: You are about to consider a report on the idea of allowing digital billboards on City property. The Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight, representing the many thousands of individuals in every council district who care about the visual environment of this city, resolutely oppose any billboards, digital or otherwise, on city property. The reasons for this are at least fivefold:

  1. Most digital signs on city property will lie outside of any recognized sign districts, in less regulated zones, without the consideration afforded to signs inside such districts. Traffic patterns, immediate surroundings, and local property considerations will likely take a back seat to the fact that a possible spot for a digital sign is city-owned and thus a potential revenue generator. Revenue generation will, we fear, supersede many other local considerations such as environmental, safety, and aesthetics.
  2. Having digital signs on city property puts city officials in the position of choosing winners and losers. Advertising on city property carries, for good or ill, the impression of city approval. Having the power to decide who gets to advertise on city property opens an avenue for undue influence over city government business, possibly leading city officials to view more favorably any related proposal or matter before them. There is no basis for confidence that future city officials will resist this influence; they may, in fact, abuse this power.
  3. The assertion that public good can come from such digital signs on city property is far less than credible. There are many avenues for public service announcements in this day and age, without mixing such announcements with advertising at a massively unfavorable ratio.
  4. An increasing number of peer-reviewed studies link digital signs to driver distraction which contributes to accidents. Thus, installing such signs on city property works directly against the city’s Vision Zero regarding traffic fatalities.
  5. Because digital signs are very difficult to remove, what you decide on this question will stand for many years. As Abraham Lincoln said, “We will be remembered in spite of ourselves.” The members of this municipal government will be remembered for what they do in office, whatever their actions, political stripes, or persuasions. You are now determining what you will leave behind for future generations of residents of this city. For what would you like to be remembered? For bringing digital visual blight to numerous communities? For embedding yet more commercial appeals in an already oversaturated environment? For weakening the safety of our streets by implanting further distractions in them? To ask such questions, we submit, is to answer them.

Patrick Frank, President

In Memory of Ted Wu, July 1, 1933 – April 25, 2017

We at the Coalition are saddened by recent death of our founder, Ted Wu. Herewith the obituary from the Los Angeles Times:

Ted was born in Shanghai, China, the eldest son of Tseng-Yu and Rosy Belin Wong. He was a retired Architect and Graphic Designer; attended Hong Kong University and graduated in Architecture from the University of Brasil in Rio De Janeiro using two separate dictionaries to navigate from Chinese to English, then English to Portuguese. He earned earned a second degree in Industrial Design, a member of the first class at ESDI (Escola Superior de Desenho Industrial), in Rio. His work spanned being on the team that designed the capital Brasilia under Oscar Niemeyer, the office of Charles and Ray Eames, and prior to starting his own practice, a teaching position at the Art Center College of Design. Working with his own team, projects included the Tom Bradley International Terminal as well as the ’84 LA Olympic Press Center.

He was a consummate designer, though his career came second to his love for his family and friends. He was as warm and charming as he was critical and irascible, and made friends easily wherever he wandered. He delighted in gathering people for meticulously planned meals and festivities, partnering with his beloved Brasilian wife, Mia, to put on beautiful parties at their home. Ted was a keeper of memories, which he archived in the Helvetica-labelled family photo albums.

An account of his remarkable life, The Wus is available on Amazon. He was a devoted activist against visual pollution, and a lifelong adversary of the Billboard Industry.

He is survived by his wife Iracema (“Mia”), daughters Dafna (Jess); Debora (Jeremy); Lena (Felipe); and grandchildren Ruby, Amalia, Naia, Tai, and Iliana. He is also survived by his sisters Ana, Lillian, and Vickie. He was predeceased by his granddaughter Isa Leah and brothers Tony and Bill. He lived by the late Massimo Vignelli’s credo, “The life of a designer is a life of fight; fight against ugliness”. Ted fought the good fight with passion and humor. He leaves us heartbroken, but in a world made more beautiful for his having been here. Donations in his memory can be made to Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight (CBBB) and Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Contributions by check made out to Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight should be sent to Patrick Frank, 1622 Crescent Place, Venice CA 90291. A Memorial celebration is being planned.

Patrick Frank, President

PLUM Committee to Sign Companies: “Romance Me & Finance Me!”

The slow collapse of the City Council Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) committee into the arms of the sign companies continues. If you are ready to be shocked at what LA might look like in the near future, read the latest Planning Department report to the committee, which was just posted this week.

http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2011/11-1705_rpt_PLAN_03-28-2017.pdf

The PLUM committee asked the Planning Dept. to report on how the city might permit the installation of digital billboards outside of sign districts. The planners seem to have written this report reluctantly, because they referred in the text to their previous opposition to digital signs outside sign districts. But still, they followed orders and drew up various plans to allow both off-site and on-site digital signs in ways that should arouse the opposition of anyone who cares about our visual environment.

Instead of installing off-site digital signs only in areas zoned Regional Commercial, the proposal calls for allowing them in areas zoned “Regional Center Commercial, Regional Commercial, General, or Highway Oriented Commercial and Zoned Commercial.” Which means, in practical terms, any zoning with the word “commercial” in it.

As for allowing on-site digital signs, the least permissive option suggests creation of a new tier of sign districts: “A Tier 3 type Sign District would allow a wider variety of businesses to establish on-site digital signs while retaining a Citywide prohibition on digital signs.” So we might have both a citywide prohibition of digital signs and a wide variety of on-site digital signs, which sounds Orwellian on its face. And Tier 3 is the most restrictive option; neither of the other two options proposed provides for any kind of public hearing.

Throughout, there are exceptions allowed for digital signs at gas stations and theaters, almost no matter where they are located.

When we add this memo to PLUM’s previous consideration of allowing digital billboards on city property, we see that the committee is taking the sign ordinance in another irresponsible direction. We are headed for digital signs on nearly any busy street in Los Angeles. We don’t yet know what will be the terms of the ordinance that PLUM will send to the full council. But in its lust for more campaign contributions from sign companies, the committee seems to be renouncing any meaningful consideration of traffic safety or aesthetics.

Patrick Frank

Billboard Relocation: Latest Plan to Unleash Digital Billboards in L.A.

Under latest plan, Clear Channel could take down three billboards like the one on the left in East L.A. and turn on the digital billboard, right, in West L.A.

Under latest plan, Clear Channel could take down three billboards like the one on the left in East L.A. and turn on the digital billboard, right, in West L.A.

The slow-moving but relentless push for more digital billboards on L.A.’s commercial streets got a boost last week with the unveiling of a detailed plan for allowing the now-prohibited signs. Presented to the City Council’s Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) committee, the plan would require billboard companies to make payments to the city and remove a certain number of existing billboards in exchange for the right to put up new signs of the highly lucrative digital variety.

The committee directed city agencies to develop a legal framework to implement the digital billboard plan, even though the City Planning Commission (CPC) last year approved a new citywide sign ordinance that restricts the brightly-lit signs with rapidly changing ads to sign districts in a limited number of high-intensity commercial areas. That action would put those signs off-limits in more than 80 per cent of the city’s commercial zones.

With certain exceptions, new billboards and alterations to existing billboards have been banned in L.A. since 2002 and digital billboards have been explicitly prohibited since 2009. However, state law allows cities to enter into relocation agreements with billboard companies, which means that a billboard can be moved from one location to another without running afoul of billboard bans such as L.A.’s.

This law, intended to relieve cities from the burden of paying large amounts in compensation if a billboard has to be removed from private property for a street widening or other public works project, has been advocated by billboard giant Clear Channel as a mechanism for not only putting up new digital billboards, but turning on many of the 99 digital billboards that went dark by court order three years ago.

In the CLA’s plan, the relocation agreements would allow new digital billboards to be put up or the existing digital billboards to be turned on in locations of the companies’ choice without hearings and approvals by zoning officials or local planning commissions. As long as the companies agree to make a specified annual payment to the city, take down a certain number of existing billboards, and meet restrictions regarding location and illumination, permits for the new or re-activated digital billboards would be issued “by right.”

This, of course, directly contradicts what billboard company representatives and pro-digital billboard politicians have said for several years, which is that communities should be able to choose whether or not they want the signs on their commercial streets.  If people in North Hollywood or East L.A. see the billboards as bringing benefits to their community, the argument went, they should have them; if people in Silverlake or Westwood see them as a detriment, they should be able to say no.

Be that as it may, here are the details of the CLA’s plan: A billboard company wishing to put up a new digital billboard could choose to remove existing billboards at a ratio ranging from 2:1 to 9:1, based on square footage of sign face. A standard full-sized billboard is 672 sq. ft., so two of those or some other number of signs adding up to 1,300-plus square feet would have to removed. If a billboard company chose the 2:1 ratio, it would have to pay the city an annual fee of $250,000, but if it took down existing billboards at higher ratios the required fee would incrementally decrease, up to the 9:1 ratio, which would not trigger any fee payment.

The plan also recommends that companies putting up new digital billboards provide “community benefits” to offset the negative impacts of the new signage. These include streetscape improvements, public art programs, and funding for transit-related services, among others.

There are some proposed restrictions on where the new digital billboards could be put. For example, in public parks, along designated scenic highways, in historic preservation zones, and areas zoned neighborhood or limited commercial. The plan also proposes a limit on the light cast by the billboards, although the method of measurement is widely regarded as an inaccurate reflection of the brightness of the signs that employ thousand of LED lights, and many cities, including L.A., have begun using a newer, more accurate method that measures the light at its source.

After listening to these details, along with a related report by the City Administrative Officer (CAO) and comment from members of the public, PLUM committee chairman Jose Huizar closed the discussion by directing the city agencies, with the assistance of the city planning department and City Attorney’s office, to return with additional details needed to implement the plan, which would require ultimate approval by the full City Council.

Despite the fact that the issue has drawn heated public debate, and the plan represents the first detailed step in the direction of allowing new digital members on most commercial streets, not a single member of the committee other than Huizar had any comment or question for the city officials presenting the reports.

Before moving on to other items on the committee’s agenda, Huizar also got in a swipe at the City Planning Commission, which he has accused in the past of overstepping its bounds by making changes to the sign ordinance sent to it by the committee. Those changes mean that the City Council will need a supermajority, or 10 votes, to overrule the commission’s approval of an ordinance that restricts new digital signs to sign districts.

Huizar also raised an issue that has been alluded to but not explicitly discussed by committee members in the past, which is the idea that the less affluent City Council districts have borne the brunt of billboard blight in the past, and are therefore particularly deserving of the relief promised by the takedown provisions of the CLA’s digital billboard plan.

The councilman, whose district encompasses most of downtown and the majority Latino communities of East L.A. and Boyle Heights, pointed to statistics in the CAO report showing that his district ranks first among the city’s 15 council districts in number of billboards. The district, along with two South L.A. districts, have 36% of the total billboards in the city, Huizar said.  And while the City Planning Commission’s restriction of new digital billboards to sign districts also includes a requirement that any new signs be offset by the takedown of existing billboards, Huizar said that this would not result in a significant reduction of billboards in those districts.

But are Huizar’s East L.A. district and the two predominately Latino and African American districts in South L.A. he cited really disproportionately blighted by billboards? According to city records, Huizar’s district has 772 billboard faces, which is the highest of any of the 15 council districts. Council districts 8 and 9, represented by council members Marqueece Harris-Dawson and Curren Price, respectively, who also happen to be members of the PLUM committee, each have 719 billboard faces, ranking them second to Huizar’s district.

However, if those districts are ranked by total square footage of billboard faces, Huizar’s district ranks 7th, and the other two 11th and 13th. In fact, the district ranked first on this scale, councilman Paul Koretz’s predominately westside district, has 279,000 sq. ft., compared to 165,000 sq. ft. in Huizar’s district and only 97,000 sq. ft. in Price’s district. Which means that Koretz’s more affluent district has fewer billboard structures than those other districts, but the billboards have significantly larger faces and therefore display larger, more prominent advertisements. Thus, the argument over which districts are disproportionately blighted by billboards turns on the question of what is the major source of the blight, the billboard’s structure or the advertising displayed on the face.

The council districts ranked 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in terms of square footage of billboard space each have more than 200,000 sq. ft. Along with Kortez’s district, those districts represented by Mike Bonin, David Ryu, and Mitch O’Farrell also happen to be the ones in which Clear Channel and Outfront Media put up all but a handful of 101 digital billboards beginning in 2007 and ending with a moratorium at the end of 2008. Those districts not only had more full-sized billboards to convert to digital but are among the most affluent in the city and therefore more attractive to advertisers paying premium rates for the 8-second spots on the signs.

It’s therefore no mystery why Koretz, Bonin, and Ryu have publicly announced their opposition to allowing digital billboards anywhere outside sign districts, as per the City Planning Commission action. Councilman Paul Krekorian has also publicly opposed plans to allow new digital billboards outside sign districts on private property, although none of the 101 signs went up in his San Fernando Valley district. O’Farrell hasn’t taken as definite a stand as his four colleagues, but has told constituents that he was happy with the planning commission’s action.

If the plan presented this week to allow digital billboards beyond those limited sign districts is eventually approved, Clear Channel could turn on most of the 84 billboards it put up in 2007-2008. Likewise, Outfront Media. And the city’s third major billboard company, Lamar Advertising, which owns some 3,000 small billboards in mostly lower-income neighborhoods, could erect new digital billboards on commercial thoroughfares in areas with the more affluent consumers valued by advertisers.

For example, the plan would allow Clear Channel to turn on a now-dark digital billboard on Santa Monica Blvd. in West L.A. in exchange for removing two or three old, rundown billboards in council district 8 in south L.A. and paying the city an annual fee of $250,000. That might seem a great deal for Harris-Dawson, who represents that district and has complained of billboard blight there, but what of people in the residential neighborhood adjacent to that Santa Monica Blvd. billboard who repeatedly complained of constantly changing light cast into their homes and brilliantly lit ads for products and services looming beyond their roofs in the night sky.

A fourth member of the PLUM committee, Gil Cedillo, whose district west and north of downtown includes some of the city’s poorest areas, could also benefit from the removal of old, blighted billboards, especially since Clear Channel and company are not likely to look at most of the district as fertile ground for new digital billboards. The fifth member, Mitchell Englander, represents a much more affluent district in the northwest San Fernando Valley, but the predominately residential district has by far the fewest number of billboards in the city and probably wouldn’t be a major target for companies wanting to put up new digital signs.

As mentioned above, the plan would require votes from 10 of the 15 city council members since it conflicts with the ordinance approved by the planning commission.  If council members Bonin, Koretz, Ryu, and Krekorian maintain their current stands, and are joined by O’Farrell, they could block that action since one council seat is currently vacant.  However, that vacancy will be filled in the upcoming city election and a new council member will be seated on July 1 or next year.

There are some other hurdles as well.  A Clear Channel representative has written a letter to the committee criticizing the takedown ratios as too high, and arguing that instead of a set annual fee the companies and city should negotiate a fee for each relocation agreement.  Regency Advertising and Summit Media, two of the city’s small billboard companies, have also argued for lower takedown ratios and fees on the grounds that the proposed plan would shut them out of the process.

And City Attorney Mike Feuer, who unsuccessfully sponsored a statewide moratorium on digital billboards when he was a state assembly member, has not weighed in on the possible legal ramifications of the billboard relocation scheme.  Feuer has already poured cold water on one of the PLUM committee’s earlier proposals, which was to grant “amnesty” to all unpermitted and non-compliant billboards in the city.

To read the CLA and CAO reports in the city’s council files, click here.

Next Page »