MasterPlanning!: Is Everyone Wrong About Billboards?
by Tony Chavira
We may be experiencing a ...
![billboard masacre [sic]](/content/2/5/9/1.gif "billboard masacre [sic]")
(Yes, we know it’s spelled wrong. Not our fault.)
Here in Los Angeles, we can’t stand advertising, especially from cold, heartless corporations that only have their best interests in mind. Studies have shown that, even without billboards, our eyes are only really on the road about 50% of the time while we’re driving. Adding them to the mix can only lead to more accidents. Add on top of that the fact that the newest wave of billboards are all electronic, flashing wildly and changing abruptly as you weave dangerously through traffic. Light pollution has even been shown to harm local biodiversity: streets, cars and buildings reflect light better than water, and insects are fooled into laying their doomed eggs on these spaces, subsequently reducing their populations. Which subsequently reduce the populations of their respective predators, and so on and so on, turning cities into biological dead-zones. Unsafe for people, unsafe for wildlife ... we’re compelled to stop this blight on the Los Angeles landscape. We should rage against billboards until the last one is torn down in a blazing inferno of anti-establishment fury!
Or maybe we’re all just overreacting melodramatically. Maybe billboards are exactly what Los Angeles needs right now, and our blood is boiling too hot with the idea of visual blight that we can’t keep cool and see the benefits for everyone. I don’t know where you’re sitting while you’re reading this. Maybe at a laptop in some cold Boston apartment, or in Miami, surfing with your cell phone on the beach. But I’m sure that the moment you step outside your home and into a public area, you’ll see a billboard or two. Subways around the world are lined with huge, constantly-replaced posters. Times Square and Millennium Park are flanked by advertising on all sides. The city of Venice is currently trying to restrict large-scale advertising in St. Mark’s Square, but it’s such an easy way to raise money for much-needed renovations. Sure, the Bridge of Sighs is covered by advertisements for the Eni Oil Group and Lancia cars. Sure, the Biblioteca Marciana façade is at this moment almost completely covered by a Swatch billboard. But these are historical landmarks in deep peril in these desperate financial times. If the patrons didn’t use advertising, how would they be able to keep the square free and still raise the money they need for full renovations?
On that point, I ranted a few months ago about the possibility of splattering the interior of the Red Line with advertising). In it, I outlined how much money Los Angeles Metro would need to scrounge together just to get the line started. I surmised that it would be, conservatively, about $32 billion to tunnel all the way to the sea from their starting point on Hollywood and Highland. Now, with the revised prices and timelines outlined in the aftermath of Measure R, it turns out that it’ll take about $6.5 billion just to get the subway about halfway to Westwood. Sure, it might come in under budget. On the other hand, Bent Flyvbjerg has shown us that the numbers are, more than likely, predicted dangerously low. No surprise, the city of Los Angeles needs money. Just like every other city these days.
Both sides of the billboard argument are represented on the Los Angeles city council and their arguments are clear, although (naturally) their motives are not wholly transparent. So let’s break it down, once and for all:
Assemblyman Mike Feuer of Los Angeles proposed Assembly Bill 109, which basically prohibits digital billboards from being built, as well as the conversion, enhancement or modification of traditional billboards, until 2012. Violators get fined $3,500 a day. If Governor Schwartzenegger signed this bad boy, it would take effect next January 1.
The Pro-Billboard Brigade’s Argument
A settlement made between the city of Los Angeles and the sign company, World Wide Rush, would allow 877 billboards in the city to be converted to digital. Obviously, CBS and ClearChannel, the owners of most of Southern California billboards, thought this was great. They also think that L.A. County residents don’t mind digital signs at all. But AB 109 essentially stops this agreement right in its tracks, at the state level. On top of that, the Pro-Billboard Brigade argues that the state of California has the right to change the language in the bill to funnel billboard revenues to any agency they want, essentially leaving the city of L.A. high and dry.
Most of the Pro-Billboard Brigade probably cares about local vs. state control, especially in terms of which municipality ends up getting revenue. But really, would you be surprised if some of them were in billboard companies’ pockets? Rocky Delgadillo alone received $500,000 worth of free billboard campaign advertising! If they were really worried about state vs. local control, they might ask that the bill be amended instead of canned entirely. The Pro-Billboard Brigade might try and find a way to negotiate that only a percentage of these 877 billboards be converted. Or they might ask for an assessment of which billboards, if made bright and shiny, would be most conducive to public safety. Jack Weiss is trying this, while still letting them push forward with the conversion (which the American Institute of Architects deplores, since billboards block the view of pretty buildings).
When approached about the issue of billboard revenue, Assemblyman Feuer said he had no idea what the council was talking about.
The Anti-Billboard Brigade’s Argument
But money’s always the imperative, and no one would be surprised if Feuer was playing dumb. Councilman Bill Rosenthal’s district alone has about 563 billboards (34 illegally posted), and 20 have been converted to digital. “It's obviously a good thing to have a moratorium so that we can understand the safety aspects of digital billboards,” he told the L.A. Times when asked about his stance on AB 109. But it took me exactly one second to find an academic article online that show a relationship between traffic safety and regular billboards. What Councilman Rosenthal’s actually saying is, “Since very vocal constituents in my district hate these digital billboards, I’m going to act like we’re in the process of conducting research for safety purposes. But there’s no way I’m taking down the existing billboards. They’re making us too much money.”
The Anti-Billboard Brigade’s been stewing since the city council passed its first billboard ban in 2001 and exactly nothing changed. But when the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals upheld an L.A. ordinance to keep billboards off public property (although the same signs can be splattered all over private property) and the city council passed a three-month moratorium on new ones this past December, they were finally on a roll. The most fervent advocates of AB 109 are using these things as their launching pad to shut down digital billboards throughout the state, and they want to do it before the Pro-Billboard Brigade completes revisions to the local sign code and fee structure.
What’s more, the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight jumped on the issue, specifically defending outspoken Westside constituents. A small army was formed, and now the city is polarized. In fact, opponents of Jack Weiss’s 5th district reelection campaign are almost solely focused on bashing his history of letting companies splatter billboards all over his district.
We certainly need money for public improvements, and these signs don’t have to be up forever. But digital signs are gigantic, throbbing eyesores. If we relinquish our control over billboard legislation and the state takes control and shuts them all down, might state legislators extend their powers and take the existing billboard revenue for themselves? If the city retains control, would council members be even more lenient about enforcing billboard laws now that 877 more are slated to go up around the city of Los Angeles?
What’s it going to be, readers? Any proposals for a negotiation? Or will the billboard debate massacre Los Angeles?
www.racaia.com | tony@fourstory.org
Comments
No comments yet.
