.
Feedback

Digital Billboards Could Be History, Court Suggests

Paul Krekorian, who has a special interest in the issue, weighs in.

A member of California's 2nd District Court of Appeal today signaled the court's support for revoking a settlement agreement between the city and Clear Channel Outdoor and CBS Outdoor that allowed the firms to install about 100 highly lucrative digital billboards around the city.

Calling them "tentative thoughts," Associate Justice Laurence Rubin signaled before oral arguments that his three-judge panel would find the agreement "void for all purposes," according to the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office.

Rubin said his tentative inclination was to send the case back to the lower court with an instruction to revoke the 100 or so digital sign permits.

City Councilman Paul Krekorian, chairman of the city’s Budget and Finance Committee, and representing District 2, has long worked to restrict billboards citywide. He released the following statement:

Today's tentative ruling, if it is finalized by the Court, will be a big step forward in achieving one of the City's primary goals: a significant reduction in the number of billboards citywide. Now is exactly the time to press forward and adopt a comprehensive policy to manage outdoor advertising that will achieve the three goals we set out in our motion last week -- reduction in the number of signs, revenues to assist communities that have suffered their impacts, and resolution once and for all of this long-simmering battle over past failures in policy making.

Achieving a positive solution that benefits all citizens of Los Angeles in this and future generations will be possible only if the Council continues to pursue those three goals in the most inclusive way possible, and that is exactly the kind of public dialogue that I hope our motion will produce. 

The case dates back to 2006, when then-City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo cut a special agreement with Clear Channel and CBS to end a previous lawsuit over the city's billboard laws. The settlement gave the two companies permission to obtain permits for 420 digital signs each in exchange for taking down other static billboards.

The agreement drew a legal challenge from Summit Media, which was not part of the deal.

A Superior Court judge ruled in 2009 that the settlement was illegal and called it "poison."  That led the city to stop issuing digital sign permits to the two billboard companies, but not before they were able to put up about 100 digital signs, mostly on the city's Westside.

Meanwhile, the City Council two weeks ago, at the urging of Clear Channel and CBS Outdoor, moved to accelerate a new agreement and draft regulations on digital signs aimed at resolving Summit's lawsuit, potentially allowing the companies to keep their 100 digital billboards and giving other firms a pathway to put up digital signs of their own.

Krekorian, who co-sponsored the motion, has said it is his intention to reduce the overall number of billboards.

It is unclear what effect the judge's "tentative thoughts" will have on the effort to draft new digital sign legislation.

Special Assistant City Attorney Jane Usher, who has represented the city in the lawsuit, said, "tentative rulings are just that, tentative. We would all be well served by waiting to see what the panel's written decision says."

The court is expected to issue its written decision within 90 days.

"We are disappointed in the court's tentative ruling, but we hope our oral arguments clarified key points to be considered in the final opinion," said Jim Cullinan, vice president of communications for Clear Channel Outdoor. "This tentative ruling does highlight the real need for a comprehensive legislative solution which is in the best interests of the city, community and the industry."

A representative for CBS Outdoor could not be immediately reached for comment.

City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, a longtime critic of digital billboards, said he was "delighted" by the tentative ruling, characterizing it as a step in the right direction toward getting a revenue stream for what he called "polluting and harassing" signs.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Studio City Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Barbara Krause May 21, 2013 at 07:58 pm
Oh, it was under announcements and not opinion so that is why I did not understand the post whichRead More appeared as facts.
John Walker May 21, 2013 at 05:14 pm
Presumptuous? What about my "endorsement" is presumptuous. You don't really need toRead More respond😃, I just didn't understand the comment.
Barbara Krause May 21, 2013 at 09:06 am
Somewhat presumptuous this early on Voting Day.
Miki Henderson April 27, 2013 at 02:27 pm
Is there a video of this minecraft from mr donovan
Rich Addams March 30, 2013 at 02:49 pm
Luv the bunnyleggos
Cheyenne Chasen March 25, 2013 at 01:00 pm
Love seeing the new entries each and every week! Keep it up!
Alex Daniels May 22, 2013 at 12:18 am
glad you lost Wendy...not even your mafia DWP bedfellows could push you through..now go away...
Alex Daniels May 21, 2013 at 09:05 pm
I also notice Wendy Gruel has no platform, except taking money from special interest (most notablyRead More her puppet masters at the DWP) and having one of the most negative campaigns I've ever seen......no thanks, negative Wendy, fool me once.....Eric is our next Mayor....
Jo Perry May 20, 2013 at 08:27 pm
The signs are everywhere! Please vote for Wendy, Nora. He is also running ads about Wendy GreuelRead More that he knows are outright lies.
Mike Szymanski (Editor) May 19, 2013 at 02:21 pm
She has received a lot of flak about making a premature decision...I hope someone from OvarianRead More Cancer or the community weighs in on this and gives their thoughts in a blog! Thanks...just click the START BLOGGING button below! THANKS!
Mike Szymanski (Editor) May 17, 2013 at 09:34 am
It's better if you put this in the START A BLOG area and add photos...it stays there longer!
A. May 18, 2013 at 01:37 pm
ok. have now spent some time navigating the new patch. i hope everyone will give it a chance. it'sRead More growing on me. i think once everyone is more familiar with the new version they'll like it too.
Irene DeBlasio May 17, 2013 at 04:09 pm
@MikeSzymanski I must admit that I haven't been able to detect a new format. Where is the format?Read More Who designed this? All I can tell is that there is a beautiful shot of trees -- perfect! Under that banner all hell breaks lose and you can't tell what you're looking it. There might be a huge blowup of Mr. Walker or a too big notice of something official-looking -- possibly an agenda. I have not been able to navigate through all the stuff. Lots of white space on either side which gives me impression that we're tailoring a community paper more toward an iphone or smart phone (or a tablet). Maybe I need a GPS to find a good list of contents here. In the meantime, it's not very attractive (exception for the banner trees photo) nor entertaining and not very informative. Scotty Reston, where are you now that we need you?
A. May 16, 2013 at 10:19 pm
the picture selected is nice and it well suits the page. it would be nice to see the full pic. tooRead More bad so much of it is blocked from the top portion of the content....any chance of seeing the full picture and starting the content beneath it?
Barbara Krause May 17, 2013 at 08:00 am
I find this very disconcerting. Mel Randall who is on the Land Use Committee was asked to submit hisRead More name. We assumed qualifications would be checked and then those best suited would be chosen. Two entries of the same name is in itself so bad makes me feel that all of this should be redone.
Hugh May 16, 2013 at 07:50 am
I was at the meeting last night and saw all I need to see on how our neighborhood council work. TheyRead More had a drawing for the grievance panel. WHAT A SHAM!! They drew 1 guys name twice and rather than stop the proceedings and make sure that the names in the hat were legitimate and no other duplicates exist and redo the drawing, they just drew another name. Now it probably was just a fluke but the appearance of a rigged drawing is there and it taints the whole council and it proceedings. It is very apparent why we need a grievance panel in the first place. When the appearance of corruption exists at the lowest levels of our democratic process it is no wonder that the whole system is collapsing before our eyes. Our neighborhood council should hang their heads in shame!