Sunday, December 27, 2009
If you've been to Las Vegas, it doesn't take long to notice the city's love affair with brightly lit signs and billboards. These high-tech, high-pixel creatures come in all shapes and sizes.
Yet, rather than reside in Vegas (with a second habitat in Times Square), these creatures have begun to migrate to all parts of the country. Sometimes it happens overnight in a Baltimore Colts-style operation. Other times, the change is more obvious.
In either case, many conventional billboards are being transformed into brightly-lit, pulsating versions of their more static ancestors.
Alot of questions arise when these changes occur. Several involve complex legal issues. Take, for instance, this dispute in Los Angeles:
The 92 digital signs began popping up several years ago after Los Angeles struck a deal with two billboard companies, Clear Channel Outdoor and CBS Outdoor, which had sued the city over its earlier sign regulations. The 2006 agreement, negotiated by former City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo, allowed Clear Channel Outdoor and CBS Outdoor to modernize up to 840 billboards in exchange for removing 98 -- 3% of their inventory. The City Council approved the deal, but a number of council members have said they did not grasp the effect it would have on some of their constituents.
Last year billboard competitor Summit Media sued the city, alleging that the 2006 settlement in effect exempted the two companies from city zoning laws that other firms were required to follow.
In November, Superior Court Judge Terry A. Green ruled in favor of Summit and invalidated the agreement. But Green said it was up to the city to determine whether to revoke the permits for the Clear Channel and CBS digital billboards. Councilmen Paul Koretz and Bill Rosendahl immediately called for converting all of the brightly lit signs back to traditional billboards, while council President Eric Garcetti and Councilman Ed Reyes proposed studying whether the signs should be modified or demolished. But CBS and Clear Channel appealed the ruling -- putting a stay on Green's order. Meanwhile, council members have asked city officials to evaluate their legal options.
You can read the entire L.A. Times article here.
Much of this dispute relates to the alleged "eyesore" or aesthetic problems with electronic billboards. While that certainly is a valid ground for regulatory consideration, one might find an even stronger case related to the safety effect of brightly-lit digital billboards--especially those that rotate multiple ads.
I know personally that I've been driving along and found myself distracted by these type billboards. So much so that I've heard of others involved in fender benders for this very reason.
Maybe the life/safety angle is a better challenge than the aesthetic one.
--Chad Emerson, Faulkner U.
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Katherine Dentzman on A Coordinated Approach to Food Safety and Land Use Law at the Urban Fringe
- Jesse Richardson on Local Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Local Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing
- Samuel on Schleicher and Rauch on local regulation of the sharing economy
- Timothy Wayne George on Is Reed v. Town of Gilbert an important sign case?
- Water Down Under: A Report from Australia by Barb Cosens: Post 2: Comparative Water Law: Australia and the western United States or Conversations with Claire
- APA Planning & Law Division's Smith-Babcock-Williams Student Writing Competition now accepting entries
- Jan 30 - Boston U Law - The Iron Triangle of Food Policy - AJLM Symposium
- "Basic Human Right" to Farm Your Lawn?
- CFP: Fordham Law: Sharing Economy, Sharing City: Urban Law and the New Economy