Federal judge backs L.A.'s ban against new billboards, supergraphics

A federal judge refused today to halt enforcement of the Los Angeles City Council’s newest outdoor advertising law, which bars the installation of new digital billboards and multistory supergraphic signs across the city.

In a tentative ruling, U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins said Liberty Media had failed to show a likelihood that it would prevail with its procedural arguments against the month-old ordinance.

Liberty had asked Collins to issue an injunction and force the city’s Building and Safety Department to allow 16 new signs to go up. One billboard foe had feared that a ruling against Los Angeles would have had greater ramifications, opening the door to scores of new signs by other advertising businesses.

 “My feeling was that if she ruled in favor of Liberty Media, the sign companies would be lining up outside the Building and Safety Department to get permits,” said Dennis Hathway, president of the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight.

City officials said all 16 signs sought by Liberty Media were supergraphics, which can cover the entire side of a building.

Los Angeles is fighting more than 20 legal challenges from the billboard companies opposed to its efforts to regulate outdoor advertising. The council approved a temporary sign ban in December, hoping to buy itself time to craft a new ordinance that would withstand a court challenge.

In the weeks after that vote, Liberty Media challenged the moratorium, saying that exceptions had been made for “favored high-profile developments,” including the W Hotel in Hollywood. The council responded months later by unanimously passing a permanent sign ban in August.

Soon afterward, Liberty Media argued that the council had violated the state’s open meetings law and its own City Charter by enacting the law. Collins disagreed in her tentative decision. “None of these claims has merit,” she wrote.

Deputy City Atty. Michael Bostrom said he was pleased with the tentative ruling and would seek to enforce the sign laws in a uniform way. Liberty’s attorney, Andrew Kugler of Mayer Brown, had no immediate comment.

-- David Zahniser at L.A. City Hall

Comments

[Brad Leyman]

Digital billboards are very distracting to drivers.
Has a poll ever been taken to see if the general public,whom these signs are designed to attract,like or dislike ar have any comment at all?

[Sal B]

Digital billboards and "supergraphics" that cover the entire outside of buildings are a blight, a form of pollutions that we, as citizens, have been forced to endure. It's about time something was done to stop this awful practice of covering every available inch of everything in ads. Now how about getting them off the outside of buses?

[jacksplat]

Billboards are ruining the landscape. I'd be happy to never see one again.

[West Side citizen]

Great news! We have plenty of these billboards and supergraphics and this is the only way these advertisers will be reasonable.

[BGN]

Tax dollars folks? By allowing the Digital billboards there are more tax dollars for the city of LA. Also, show the public proof that these signs are distracting to drivers.

[Whatever]

I would like all the digital billboards and supergraphics to go away. They are very distracting to drivers (Study anyone? Starting with the ones by the Citadel!) and simply ugly. I could not believe they were legal when I first saw them.

[Inthemix]

Driving west on Wilshire Blvd. the differecnce is literally day and night once you enter the City of Santa Monica. Check out the glut of digital ads on both sides of Wilshire just east of the city border. Pass into Santa Monica and no billboard blight at all. Not one. It's such a relief!
Maybe Lost Angeles really can avoid the dystopian BladeRunner future of giant interactive Coca Cola billboards blasted 20 stories high but I doubt it. No City Planner will ask the honest question if this affects quality of life. Oh wait, that's socialism.....somebody call Glenn Beck and Fox News!

[SUPERBLACK]

Are you serious? Billboards? How in the world does a billboard hurt somebody? Do billboards rape, pillage, steal or kill? Seriously there MUST be better things for you to complain about.

[John]

i guess i would rather see building & buses cover with these super ads than graffiti which most of them do... at least the city can get business & tax revenue from the advertiser than spending money cleaning up graffiti.

[JP]

Digital signs are like hot coffee. Just be careful. I haven't seen piles of car wrecks around these signs. Besides, they look cool. The tall rectangles they cover are ugly.

[Inthemix]

To BGN:
The dollar amounts are insignificant when comparing revenue from standard billbaords vs. digital. The reason is simple; who do you think pays for the power these digital ads gulp down? Is this where you want to go? Even more energy consumption when we should be conserving and going green? How about the quality of life issue? Do you want one of these digital ads in your backyard?
Oh wait, Fox News is on the other line; something about the Socialists/Nazis and/or Commies taking over Lost Angeles and squashing freedom of speech. Next they're going to take our guns......Blah Blah Blah.

[Alexander]

I am so happy to see the city and the judge put people first instead of greedy companies that don't give a damn about us they just want to make more and more money on the backs of the well being of us. When is having enough money enough. The city council did the right thing for a change.
alex

[Mr. Sunshine]

I don't like all the ads either but I'll endure them to live in a country that's free.
Too many "do gooders" legislating everything so the world is safe for all us folks who now can't do anything we used to, because it's illegal, or tort law makes it uneconomical.

[Steve]

While I welcome the news, it just seems odd that decisions that affect our living environment have nothing to do about quality of life issues, but are based soley on a single judges interpretation of the law. Where is the publics' voice in all of this? We DO NOT want billboards, plain and simple, yet I cannot live in LA without being constantly bombarded with advertisements. The incompetence of the City on this issue is staggering.

[JewelD]

Thank god.

Now, how do we get rid of more of the existing ones??

Driven to distraction => accidents.

Not to mention plain old mind pollution.

Ugh.

[john doe]

wow, los angeles city continues to have ignorant leaders just as they have in the past and their laws will hurt the residents in the future! People, like me, move from california for better jobs in other places thanks to the county/city leaders! First back in the 50's they decide to pave over all the railroad tracks for freeeway and continue on with mistakes! The only thing LA has got that lawmakers try not to change is the weather!

[Donna]

What a relief...... the constant assault on our eyes, and overstimulation of our minds is disgusting. I hope someday the rest of the supergraphics and digital signs will be removed.

[margaret]

So although a moratorium on all billboards was put in effect last December, some councilmembers like Eric Garcetti who represents the W Hotel at Hollywood & Hyland, insisted on letting them have exemptions to put up their supergraphics. He claimed it was needed to revitalize Hollywood.

Herb Wesson wants the same for his Koreatown district, claiming that foreign Korean investors won't put money in unless they can make the place look like Seoul - claims it's an economic necessity. Hahn, Reyes, Perry want the same, including downtown around Staples/AEG, alleging to do otherwise would also violate long-existing agreements.

Jan Perry created a special problem by cutting her OWN deal with Clear Channel/ CBS Outdoors allowing 2 gigantic, multi-story fully-lighted monsters to go up right on a freeway median, because they kicked some bucks toward a park she wanted, and she attacked westsiders who wanted a moratorium on the grounds the such exemptions open a Pandora's Box making it impossible for any regulations to be imposed. (It all goes back to some murky dispute between Clear Channel and the MTA.)

This was the argument of Jane Usher and Carmen Trutanich, who blamed the then- council and City Attorneys for allowing ANY exemptions or concession to such councilmembers and business leaders, and said the courts would support Liberty Media. They made gratuitous campaign attacks on their opponents in the process, convincing the billboard extremists like Hathaway. So clearly, they were proven wrong; there CAN be a middle, sensible ground.

Trying to please both those who demanded these exemptions for business reasons AND those like Dennis Hathaway who make it a life's mission to ban all billboards, the council and previous city attorneys crafted a middle ground which will hopefully stand. BUT the city needs to find a way to collect a lot more revenue from the signs, and to regulate and remove illegal ones from the proceeds. For example, West Hollywood is getting upto $800,000/ year for ONE huge supergraphic on the Sunset Strip. So if it's going to offend people, at least let the city make a large profit out of it.

[David B]

Personally, I really like the digital billboards (well, at least when they have ads that are tastefully done by a designer and not a hack repurposing a web banner). They're very clean-looking. They totally look better than all the old school paper ones. Now *those* are ugly.

The ones covering buildings we can talk about; but I think wherever there's an approved, paper billboard, the companies should be allowed to upgrade them to digital.

[rob]

The article does not cover the scope of what the subject "supergraphics" are (except those shown in the on-line article), but there needs to be a limit to what can be advertised and in that context what's shown/posted (for billboards). Standards should be in line with customary and acceptable, non-offensive guidelines; in other words, common sense should be applied. Having guns as advertised for something as "out there" as GTA, when the city and country is fighting against illegal and undisciplined gun use (not ownership, but reprehensible and often regrettable usage) is, as far as I am concerned, outside those guidelines, in that the advertising flies in the face of the social problem that is endemic to urban, and less so, rural areas. I'm sure that all the lawyers representing the media company are well removed from the daily violence that plagues the areas of the city where this sort of advertising would be prominently displayed, or at least viewable to the denizens of these areas. Once displayed, doesn't the advertisement condone the activities that are depicted? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that monkey see, monkey do. GTA is not for kids, and aren't you marketing the game to "responsible adults". And doesn't it come with legal warnings and disclaimers should someone try to recreate scenes and behaviors from your fantasy game into their, and our, reality?

So relax media. Your products are selling well even before this material was proposed for display. Your industry is covered, your lawyers are covered. This is nothing other than ribald disregard of acceptable and civil behavior that's steeped in a desire to sell more of this type of entertainment. As I see it, it's nothing more than a greedy source promoting the smut of violent behavior and abandonment of values onto an uncaring and apathetic populace. When is enough enough? For me it is way too much already. I hope the LA City Council, and others around this country, will take the stand and ban this sort of advertising, and then make it permanent.

[J. Hall]

Compromise, compromise, compromise. L.A. city zoning department should map out acceptable "Billboard Zones". Some streets are so ugly that billboards of any kind may be an improvement. Other streets are world class beautiful and billboards would be the worst kind of blight. That should be an obvious solution but we may need a six story billboard recommending the application of common sense.

[Carol]

Anyone who's pro-digi boards: We'll put the one that shines into my living room in front of yours.

[tonyv]

To BGN; I don't need any statistics to tell me that digital billboards are distracting to drivers. The only proof I need is along the 5 Fwy in Commerce. Even discounting rush hour, traffic comes to a crawl in both directions as it approaches The Citadel Outlets. Never have I witnessed any good reason for the congestion, other than the twinkling signs, which are not only hideous but obnoxious. Inattentive drivers don't need any more distractions just as the landscape doesn't need any more blight.

[Dr G.]

Thank god! This is a quality-of-life issue. Signs may not rape and pillage, steal or kill (?!?!), but that's irrelevant. They are unsightly, yet demand attention when they are that big/bright. I want to be able to ignore advertising if I choose to (and I choose to), but these are really intrusive and should be banned. And NO ONE should have to live with the bright light shining into their home.

[Matt]

Just more unfavorable business ordinances by LA. Dont these guys understand to fund your pet projects (like outrageous compensation for teachers that are held to zero standards) you need buisness tax dollars?

[tom]

I am against the ban. It is billboards and ads like these that separate NY,TOKYO and LA from bland cities like Chicago

[NOT a Shill]

I think it's obvious all of you actually "in favor" of these obnoxious blinking billboards and super-sized ads are either brain dead or corporate shills for the ad agencies.

Listen to the (real, non-shill) people - we DON'T WANT ANY MORE ADS!!!

[Simon Says]

Wow only dumb americans would be distracted by digital billboards. Look at metropolitan cities such as Tokyo, Seoul and Hong Kong. I feel like the court treats US citiznes like babies where they have to cradle them til they die. We have way too many regulations going on where the government treats us like babies.

[Nelson]

While Los Angeles City Council’s is busy passing new laws against ads, the real quality of life issues like Gangs and Drugs continue to ravage the city. 4 month old was killed, not by a billboard, but by something that does effect the quality of life of everyone who lives in southern california. The same city council that would protect gang members who are illegal to ensure that illegals that don't commit violent crimes are not deported. Special order 40.

[Brianimaniac]

Really? Let's try to understand that a Super-graphic, UNilluminated, banner hanging by cable and bolts, TEMPORARILY, is NOT a DIGITAL BILLBOARD!
First, there has never been such a thing as a Super-graphic permit. LADBS needs to create and give birth to an actual process to obtaining a Super-graphic permit. A process that is fair and just. Not only for CC and CBS and other conglomerates but for someone such as a Landlord of a property who during a time when he can NOT find revenue for his/her commercial property he may find temporary means or financial relief by utilizing his/her property as an Alternative Outdoor Advertising asset.
Stop interfering with the people's right to there own financial advantage. Especially now.
This is LOS ANGELES, (HOLLYWOOD) . If you don't like it, you can move to IOWA!!!

[West Side citizen]

I'm glad to see such support for this ban in the comments on this article! Frankly, we the citizens of LA should have more control over our physical and mental space and left to their own devices nothing will stop the all-out flood of advertising banners, boards, and graphics. Why would they ever stop? This is *our* city, not corporate america's. If the will of the people is against these (and it seems it is), there is no law broken (as is the case), then our local government should act accordingly.

[William]

There are two kinds of people writing here. Those that find the billboards unpleasant, and those who make money with them.

There are a lot of corporate shills writing comments.

L.A. needs to go MUCH further in reducing these eyesores.

[Robert Salm]

I come to this discussion from a different angle: as a resident of Chicago, part of our city's legacy and culture is derived from its architectural heritage. Most of our structures don't have huge lighted logos at the top of buildings like LA, nor would the city ever allow someone to cover up an entire side with an oversized billboard.

Having written that, Chicago has its own battle. Dozens of buildings have hoisted tacky "RENT ME NOW," "CONDOS FOR SALE," banners--most run the length or the top but cover very little of the building--in every conceivable garish color; some of these banners can be seen from as far as 1000–3000 feet away. These are exempt from any billboard rule because they are owned by the building and advertise the building they are attached to.

Let's face the reality that building owners are desperate, both in Chicago and LA, for any additional revenue. Angelenos live in a city whose financial fortune lives or dies on the success of Hollywood and the esoteric living standards you offer your tourists. You may not like those supergraphics, but the revenue they generate is paltry to the PR and hype that draws tourists.

My view: charge the bejesus out of building owners and billboard companies who want this kind of hyperadvertising. The bad twist: advertisers will continue to enjoy the billboards, pay the higher billboard ad rates, then simply raise their product's price by 1–2% to continue reaching their measured profitability.

[Jeremie]

What right does anyone have to create/lease a space to create a visual eyesore!? What about my freedom to see beyond the signage? Id prefer not to have these aesthetic nightmares, regardless of their ability to create revenue for the city. Its time to tame advertising in public spaces, or we may end up looking a bit like Tokyo.

[Jennifer]

Stupid move by Liberty Media's lawyers, choosing to go to Federal court.

If their lawyers would have read the recent free speech in public cases, specifically involving commercial speech, they would have realized that both the Federal and California courts recognize a broader free speech right under the California Constitution and case law than one attains under Federal case law.

[DD]

No more billboards or supergraphics in LA. Hurray for City Attorney to win a big one. Thank God there is one agency left in the City of LA that won't sell the city to developers and other nefarious interests like our Mayor & those dumbos posing as councilmembers.

[Matthew]

This is a first small step in the right direction. I'm all for making a buck, but we can't let the ad companies do it at our expense. The proliferation of digital billboards has been out of control. Seems like a reasonable compromise would be to set aside zones / districts where you can have supergraphics and digi boards. This was the original plan but it wasn't enough for the bill board owners and they sued saying this is a restriction of free speach... Just another example how greed makes any common sense approach unworkable.

[Greg]

How in the world are these "wrap-around" supergraphic signs in any way, shape or form fire safe? Moreover, how can the city Building and Safety or Fire Departments cast such a blind eye to this obvious potential catastrophe?

[D Downtown]

Those billboards are hideous and are a blight on our city. Now that we have blocked new ones, how do we start removing the ones we already have? (I still am appalled they were ever approved in the first place.)

I find it annoying when people try to tell me to relax about it, or really dig for "benefits" of having billboards (ie tax revenue, adds character to the city). Because I'm sure that these same people would hardly want one of those things in their backyard or being their view from their house.

[D Downtown]

I just wonder if during the next mayoral election if a candidate could get far on a billboard reduction campaign? Just a thought....

[Kittridge]

I wish city officials were just as concerned about getting rid of other forms of ugliness throughout LA.

The same city council that can outlaw digital billboards and super graphics also has authority over the city's miles and miles of overhead power lines and power poles. Billboards in LA aren't almost everywhere. Sloppy looking power lines and weedy looking utility poles are.

[Proud City Attorney]

City Attorney Nuch Trutanich is winning every case. Note how he lets his deputy take the credit. What a change from the previous Administration!

[Dewey]

The author does not bother to explain the reasons behind the Los Angeles City Council's decision to ban digital billboards and supergraphics. As a resident in this area, I suspect that their thinking is along the same lines as mine. These things are gross distractions for drivers on freeways and city streets. As a result they cause tragic accidents and many minor ones that contribute mightily to the traffic congestion which is one of the worst disadvantages of living in this area.

I recommend that the Council go a step further and outlaw the use of computers and cell phone texting. All the scientific studies in this area strongly demonstrate that multi tasking strongly undermines safe driving and that merely requiring hands free conversation on cell phones is wrong headed and inadequate.

By the way, one of the most offensive things I have heard in recent years was in a speech made by an Orange County "sports" lawyer at the Anderson School of Management. This guy bragged about driving well over the speed limit while negotiating a complex, high stakes employment agreement with some prominent person. I refused to applaud. The guy should have been arrested as a menace to the public.

[Andi T]

It's about time the brakes were put on the uglification of L.A. Now let's see all those illegal boards torn down!

[Steve E.]

To Brianamaniac - so you say "go to Iowa" if you don't like billboards. Well, dude, I could suggest you do the same if you'd prefer not to abide by the laws of the city. Using your logic, if everyone went to Iowa, there wouldn't be anyone left to look at your Alternative Outdoor Advertisement Asset. It's no wonder our city looks like a toilet when it's filled with people whose singular focus is money, money, money and more money. You help build a beautiful, livable city over time and I'll show you sustainable growth and continuous moderate profits that will negate the necessity of plastering every surface in LA with Taco Bell and Pepsi.

[Mort Allen]

So whats new? this was #18 major lawsuit that Carmen Trutanich, Bill Carter, & Jane Usher, personally went into the Courtroom and won..had the clear channels of the world not "bought" the previous City Attorney, there never would of been a single digital billboard or super graphic. Taxes? a joke. Billboards bring in a Billion & a half dollars in yearly income and do not pay the City a penny in taxes. If the advertisers demand billboards, then have to select a vendor willing to pay the City 25% of the ad revenue and pay the property owner the same 25% of the ad revenue. If Clear Channel is too greedy to accept only half the average of $100,000 per month ad revenue, then bye bye Clear Channel. Isn't 25% of $1.5 Billion about $375 Million? Isn't the City deficit about $375 Million? Doesn't each of the 840 digitals have a half million LED light bulbs? How much power do all 840 take and why does Clear Channel get a hight use quantity discount of power rates? And if over a thousand Clear Channel Billboards are illegal - why aren't they immediatyely condemned and torn down? What if one of these illegal billboards crashed down and kills your children walking to school?
Last thing - say your son or daughter works in a high rise with a huge supergraphic covering the windows - theres a fire and the pop out windows are blocked by the sign - your kid dies, then what? Or worse, look at the huge illegal flood light on top of the buildings lighting the signs, they catch fire and fall on your car?