Billboard Confidential-KCET LA
VIA illegalsigns.ca
I found this series done by KCET LA on outdoor advertising in Los Angeles on Rami Tabello's illegalsigns.ca. This quote from part 3 of the series embodies the distrust which develops when a city fails to take care of its residents before it takes care of the outdoor advertising industry and huge profits. "It doesn't really seem like anybody cares and I don't really believe the city is capable of doing anything about it." With critical legal as well as safety issues being ignored by the outdoor advertising industry in LA and the lack of public support for outdoor advertising, it is amazing the city has not been more cavalier with the problem.
Part 3
Part 1
Part 2
I found this series done by KCET LA on outdoor advertising in Los Angeles on Rami Tabello's illegalsigns.ca. This quote from part 3 of the series embodies the distrust which develops when a city fails to take care of its residents before it takes care of the outdoor advertising industry and huge profits. "It doesn't really seem like anybody cares and I don't really believe the city is capable of doing anything about it." With critical legal as well as safety issues being ignored by the outdoor advertising industry in LA and the lack of public support for outdoor advertising, it is amazing the city has not been more cavalier with the problem.
Part 3
Part 1
Part 2
Labels: California, illegal advertising, illegalsigns.ca, LA, New Advertising, supergraphics
5 Comments:
How long before somebody (perhapse a digital version of Posterboy?) hacks the digital billboards in the same way that the freeway road signs have been hacked ?(the ones that were hacked to read Zombies Ahead)
how long until the catch one of those people and press charges?
Don't even tell me about your right with public space. Media bigwigs and their attorney's are not interested in your "cause".
I can't believe someone like "Anon" can't funnel their time and energy into something positive rather than hating on people who are only trying to express their personal opinion.
I wish they would catch clear channel and CBS outdoor and press charges on them for all of the laws they've violated..
and I can't believe Arnold wants to sell ad space on the signs used to inform people of amber alerts and traffic updates. Its just unbelievable.
Thank you for showing me this video, im sure ill end up showing it to a few people I know as well.
Oh, I forgot to give a shoutout to the Terminator!!! MY MAN!
Case 2:07-cv-00238-ABC-JWJ Document 155 Filed 08/20/2008
JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JS - 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WORLD WIDE RUSH, LLC, a
CASE NO. CV 07-238 ABC (jWJx) Pennsylvania corporation, and )
INSITE OUTDOOR WORKS LA, LLC, a) Delaware limited liabilitycompany,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
A California municipal
corporation and DOE 1 through
DOE 10, inclusive
Defendant.
On August 19, 2008, the Court granted Plaintiff World. Wide Rush, LLC and incite Outdoor Works LA, LLC's (Plaintiffs'") Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety. Plaintiffs have advised the Court that, upon issuance of a permanent injunction, Plaintiffs will waive their claim for damages and all non-first-amendment claims (subject to reinstatement should the preliminary injunction be reversed on appeal), and this injunction will constitute the Final Judgment in this action. After considering the evidence presented and the arguments of the parties, the Court: rules as follows:
1) Sections 14.4.4(B)(9) and 14.4.4(B)(11) of the Sign Ordinance violate the First Amendment because the exceptions in those provisions for off-site and supergraphic signs permitted pursuant to special plans, supplemental use districts, and development agreements vest unfettered discretion in City officials.
2) The exceptions in sections 14.4.4(B)(9) and 14.4.4(3)(11) for off-site and supergraphic signs permitted pursuant to special plans, supplemental use districts, and development agreements are not severable.
3) The restriction in section 14.4.6 on signs within 2,000 feet of a freeway violates the First Amendment because it does not directly advance the City's asserted interests underlying the restriction and is not narrowly tailored to achieve those interests; therefore, section 14.4.6 is an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech under
Central Hudson.
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS that:
1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
2. The City, its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all those acting in concert or participating with them, are hereby permanently enjoined from taking the following actions 'against supergraphic signs owned and operated by Plaintiffs or those in contractual privity with them at the 21 sites specified in the modified preliminary injunction:
a. Enforcing section 14.4.4(3)(9) of the sign ordinance;
b. Enforcing section 14.4.4(3)(11) of the sign ordinance;
c. Enforcing section 14.4.6 of the sign ordinance. The sites subject to this injunction are as follows:
1. 3280 Cahuenga Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90068
2. 6200 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90048
3. 1606 Cotner Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90025
4. 165 N. La Brea Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90036
5. 5150 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90036
6. 10680 W. Pico Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064
7. 1357 Highland Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90038
8. 1551 N. La Brea Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90046
9. 8200 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90211
10. 8455 Beverly Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90048
11. 1816, 1818, 1819 Oak St., Los Angeles, CA 90015
12. 1640 Marengo St., Los Angeles, CA 90033
13. 1651 S. Central Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90034
14. 8801 W. Pico Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90035
15. 11022 Santa Monica Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90025
16. 10801 National Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064
17. 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90034
18. 10924 Le Conte ,Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90024
19. 300 S. Robertson Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90034
20. 6081 Center Dr., Los Angeles, CA 90045
21. 7901 Melrose Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90046
This injunction prohibits the City both from interfering with Plaintiffs' maintenance of their off-site signs and supergraphic signs and from issuing citations to Plaintiffs or those with whom they contract based on the above-cited code sections or based on the inability of Plaintiffs to obtain permits for their off-site signs and supergraphic signs because of the City's enforcement of the above‑ cited code sections. The City may inspect and verify Plaintiffs' signs to ensure that they have been constructed according to applicable code provisions to ensure the safe construction of signs.
The Court further ORDERS that there being no claims left to litigate in this action, that this judgment is the final judgment in
this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED. .
DATED: August 20, 2008
AUDREY B. COLLINS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home