Two more billboards -- for a park?

Want two more billboards? How about if they help pay for an inner city park? That's the dilemma that deadlocked a Los Angeles City Council committee today, despite a push from the councilwoman who represents the area. More from our own David Zahniser:

Councilwoman Jan Perry said the two double-faced billboards are part of a complicated land deal that would generate enough money to create a wetland park in South Los Angeles. Still, anti-billboard groups hate the idea, in large part because one of those billboards will have shiny, digital images. Councilman Ed Reyes favored the idea, and sounded annoyed that Councilman Jack Weiss didn't. The matter now heads to the full City Council.

Today's final vote: 1 - 1. Yep, it's a three-member committee and one of them wasn't there. So the issue will be back, and we'll be back with more info.

--Veronique de Turenne

Comments

[Seen the Light]

Ed Reyes and Jan Perry have no business whatsoever trying to shove the gigantic billboards onto the Westside comunities that bitterly oppose them. Jack Weiss is doing his job of representing his district. NOR should there ever have been this "complicated deal" that requires the Westside to allow their neighborhood to be visually trashed and turned into a lower-class area, in order to get an inner city park.

I assume this is part of the deal that Rocky Delgadillo made with Clear Channel/CBS, selling out the city to cater to the whims of the billboard company -- which gave him a half-million $ in free advertising for his run as City Attorney (against anti-billboard, pro-community activist Mike Feuer), and which just a couple of weeks ago threw him a lavish bash at a Beverly Hills Hotel to "thank our good friend Rocky." Just another case where Rocky is all just for Rocky.

The worst aspect of this, is it's getting Perry and Reyes to unite against the Westside and Zev Yaroslavsky, the County Supe who represents the area, as well as against their CM Weiss, as "the enemy." They said this in so many words last week, at a City Council meeting 3/18. Perry lashed out at the Westsie in a sneering tone, as a bunch of people "whose greatest problems in life were a couple of billboards," and made them sound like they're personally taking parks away from inner city kids. (Instead of blaming Rocky's crazy "complicated plan" which ties trashing the westside in with their "generosity" to the inner city.)

Then Ed Reyes, the same day, as part of a discussion about parks, lashed out at the westside again -- CD5/Weiss and CD11/Rosendahl, in particular-- for having the most green space. He launched into discrimination against Hispanics from the '40's, with crazily irrelevant and anachronistic maps of those days, to "prove" that this was some sort of plot of continued racial discrimination. He blamed the lack of parks on the obesity of poor areas like his, Wesson's and Perry's.

(Funny, Perry herself has blamed obesity in their areas on fast food restaurants, which she wants to ban. What about "blaming" obesity on poor individual life-style choices, like not choosing to exercise, and how to cook? Poor Asian immigrants aren't obese and spend more time cooking tasty, economic home meals with vegetables and rice, for example. And anyone can do calisthenics, walk, lift weights, jog, as well. I's absurd to blame all this on the "evil westside" which is preventing parks from being built and used in the inner cities!)

Reyes added that this is one reason why he, as head of PLUM-- Planning and Land Use -- is pushing the high-density, little or no parking, low-income (which will mean subsidies, so he's essentially talking about "projects" in the old-style sense, not "affordable housing" as currently used in AB1818) IN ALL AREAS INCLUDING THE WESTSIDE AND VALLEYS, areas of currently single-family and low-density homes.

Naturally the westside and valley oppose this, and Weiss has spoken out in support of neighborhoods to retain parking and quality of life they've built up and worked for over the years, wherever possible. (Ironic that some Westsiders have attacked Weiss for being too pro-developer, when everything he's supported has been very high-end, good for the neighborhood, with developers who bend over backwards to respond to the communities. These people have NO idea of how hard it is to pick and fight battles that can be won, given the overall demographics and forces at work in the city. Including overt hostility from the likes or Reyes and Perry on issues from housing density to billboards.

Reyes said, "If the city won't put the parks where the people are," leaving no doubt that he's talking about pushing his TJ-like vision into Holmby Hills, Westwood, Encino and Woodland Hills, and the canyons of Bel Air and Pacific Palisades. The extent of his declaring battle on the NC's and HOA;s AND Zev Y at that meeting, was stunning only in that he finally said in the OPEN what he's been saying in committees for a long time, but the NC's have been too distracted with fighting their local Councilmembers over quality projects, to listen.

ONE lady from an NC showed up next day, 3/19, to protest Reyes' racial warfare and attack on the rights of Westside/Valley NC's to protect their qualities of life, that they've worked for decades to achieve, and his attack on Zev Y's right to speak out on their behalf.

BUT many, many people agree with her and need to be TOLD by the L A Times what's really happening, the big picture. This issue of 2 giant billboards turning beautifully redone Santa Monica Blvd. near Century City, or the Ocean, into TJ or Times Square, is ONLY the tip of the iceberg.

[sean]

According to an article in CityWatch, the newsmagazine of the Neighborhood City Councils, "Divide and Conquor" by Dennis Hathaway a neighborhood activist, the MTA is also somehow responsible for Jan Perry's attempts to paint this as a rich-vs-poor, white-vs.-black, issue.

Hathaway's article says that MTA won't sell the land to Perry's people outright unless some strings are attached allowing the rest of the city to get these billboards, and other companies to get matching treatment to the preferential treatment Rocky D's office gave to his benefactors Clear Channel/CBS.

Seems the other billboard companies are suing the city and county, to allow them the same rights to put more billboards up all over the city. The "Billboard District" they want sounds like it's not just one area, but the allowance of giant, lighted billboards anywhere in the city along freeways and main thoroughfares.

Jane Usher of the L A Planning Commission is quoted about how this is a safety hazard as well as unfortunately polarizing issue. Hathaway of CityWatch elaborates on how Reyes kept asking the addresses of people to further pit them against the westside and valley. Wish we had more details about the MTA's objectives and what deals Rocky made with certain billboard companies that spawned the lawsuits, and how this impacts road safety and the westside.

[Seen the Light]

The first sentence in my 8th paragraph was cut off, it was, Reyes: "If the city won't put the parks where the people are, we'll put the people where the parks are," namely the CD11 and 5 districts he kept referring to, all part of Zev Yaroslavsky's County district. But to the extent that MTA is tying inner city parks to citywide billboards, I'd like to know what Zev's role is in that, as being on the MTA Board. Things get murkier and murkier.

I live in CD2/ Wendy Greuel's district, and know the lady from CD2 who spoke up to challenge this polarizing tactic about parks, billboards etc., and support her views.

From Sherman Oaks to Woodland Hills, we also don't want those lighted, dangerous monstrosities on our highways of our Neighborhood Plans to be rolled over. Certainly not by people who have open contempt for us and our neighborhoods.

[End Billboard Blight]

In Zahnizer's article, he quotes Rocky Delgadillo as saying that he believes it's public information to tell the public where billboards are placed, and which company placed them. That's what he was instructed to get out of the billboard companies.

But then Delgadillo's spokesman Nick Velazquez -- responding to why Delgadillo tipped off Clear Channel/CBS to the L A Weekly's request for this information -- said that was typical whenever the City Attorney thinks a company is being asked for proprietary information, which could subject the city to a lawsuit. (This wouldn't have anything to do with the large campaign donations he'd gotten, and the recent HE's a Jolly Good Fellow Bash?)

So which IS the City Attorney's opinion? That this is public information, or proprietary? He tells the Council one thing, and Zahnizer/the Times another. And why would the city be sued over an issue that concerns a newspaper's request for information from a private company? Nonsensical.

This sounds like both Laura Chick and Tony Cardenas both claiming that Delgadillo supported their respective positions on the legality of Chick auditing gang programs that would be run under the Mayor's office.

If Delgadillo always declares both sides to be right, no wonder he never wins anything. What are we paying this guy for, anyway? Does he even work on the city's behalf? He was supposed to order the billboard companies to be more transparent and responsive to the communities.

Some people currently have lighted billboards shining even into their homes 24/7, but under the current "deal" there's nothing their elected officials can do to help them without Rocky warning of more lawsuits to come. All as a result of his own negotiating skills. And now racial and socio-economic politics are somehow dragged into it, as a result of more lawsuits coming from Clear Channel/CBS. With Perry, Reyes etc. blaming the very residents who worked to protect the city from Billboard Blight in the first place.

[O'Dawg]

I live in CD8 which contains South Los Angeles and surrounds unincorporated areas of LA County. We have more than enough parks, thank you! They are chuck full of soccer players, gang members and assorted gentrification resisting bigots. Commit to spending money on kicking gang members and their families out of these areas and maybe we can go to the many parks that are in South LA.

[Sandy J]

A Solomonesque decision.

I'm with the anti-billboard people. Why add to the city's eye sight blight, while giving taggers and rock-throwers another target?

Appeal to the billboard people's better nature. Ask them to donate enough money to finish the park and erect a plaque to them and incorporate it into the base of a drinking fountain.

[James McMath]

FOR THOSE APPALLED BY THE ILLEGAL ACTIONS OF THE BILLBOARD INDUSTRY AND ITS SUPPORTERS IN THE LOS ANGELES CITY GOVERNMENT PLEASE CONTACT THE COALITION TO BAN BILLBOARD BLIGHT AT:

CBBB
2700 Military Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90064
(310) 474-1711
cbbbla@verizon.net

YOUR SUPPORT AND INPUT IS URGENTLY REQUIRED TO FIGHT THIS MENACE!!

[Billy Blightly]

Does anyone notice the billboard blight shoved in our face with MTA?

Or is it just me?

I don't see how a city can police billboards when they have their hand in the same cookie jar.

The Gold Line looks like it is run by AT&T.

I love the buses that are fully wrapped in car ads. Conflict of interest?

Is the government supposed to be a paid media outlet?

This steals dollars from other local outlets....TV and Papers...as well as weakening the growth of online advertising.

And how about the latest MTA blight advertising blitz series on their buses. "imagine".... It seems wrong for the MTA to use public money to advertise/market their agenda for expensive construction projects to voters. I don't hear anything from public officials on the subject....just our pseudo government MTA monster.

Could you "imagine" the billboard blight all over LA if MTA continues to expand its current mentality?

Billboards to Everywhere!

Why arent the schools allowed to run billboards on their campuses to generate money?....oh...sorry this is about blight and not about those with the gold rule.