Rogue Sign Company That Fled L.A. Loses Court Fight in San Francisco

VIA Ban Billboard Blight

Fuel Outdoor, a New York company that put up hundreds of illegal advertising signs in L.A. and then took them down last year after losing a five-year court battle to overturn the city’s ban on new off-site signs, has suffered a major loss in a similar fight against sign regulations in San Francisco. [More Here]

Newest Street Work Pits City Against City In A War Of Restraint

Outdoor advertising takeovers don't stay up long. With and interest in keeping their product in public view, outdoor advertising companies regularly check up on their inventory to remove potential vandalism, unintended use, or in this case outright critique. This has always been a problem for me and one which I have yet to fully get around. In light of this I propose the Let Me Handle This project in collaboration with New York City and Philadelphia outdoor advertising firms.

Here's the deal. I have taken 3 advertising locations in Philadelphia as my own media sites. One is a MetroFuel location and the other two are bus shelters. I ask nicely that the companies who would potentially remove my work leave these 3 pieces intact until my exhibition comes down December 3rd. The visibility and minimal disruption to the industry as a whole I feel makes this a small favor to ask of an industry that has bombarded my environment with its own messages for as long as I can remember.

While my request is unlikely to be met, I propose a little friendly competition between New York and Philadelphia be the result of my works removal. For each piece removed in Philadelphia, two pieces will be put up in New York. The same goes for pieces removed in New York, each removal resulting in two more images being put up in Philadelphia. This process will continue until my show ends December 3rd. If the imagery stays up in Philadelphia, no more work will be made, but if the work is removed, New York will be given the opportunity to end the cycle by leaving all six resulting images intact. If New York chooses to remove my work, Philadelphia's initial response will result in 12 images being placed on their streets, and so on until December 3rd.

To me the obvious choice would be to simply leave these small disruptions up for a month and continue with business as usual. In this way I might be able to come to some unspoken agreement with those who control media production in our urban environments while maintaining my own abilities to critique that very system. What is more likely to happen is that the images will be removed and the resulting multiplying affect of those actions will make the critique more visible. As my work is ultimately about questioning outdoor advertisings role in our public environment, the more visible the project the more likely large numbers of people will engage this question. More people pondering outdoor advertising's role in our public spaces can only help further a debate that is so often overlooked in our media saturated lives.

Watch the ongoing progress of the Let Me Handle This project HERE.

Appeals Court Rules NYC Can Limit Billboards

The long standing battle between Metro Fuel and the City of New York has finally come to a conclusion. The result according to the AP...

"A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the city did not violate the First Amendment by limiting the number of billboards along its roadways and parks. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said the city's goals of reducing visual clutter, improving the overall aesthetic appearance of the city and regulating traffic safety were reasonable."

Long story short, Metro Fuel erected hundreds of Metro Light structures in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and other major metropolitan cities. When New York went after the company in an effort to have them removed them, Metro Fuel cried foul and began a lengthy legal battle claiming they had the right to post advertising under the First Amendment. The full ruling, after incredible resources have been spent by the city, can be seen here.

As OAC's are not one to listen to the law in most cases, we were surprised to see the North Shore Neon Sign Co. decommissioning several signs on 21st street today. When asked, the crane operators said that they were in fact removing almost all of the signs from New York. Amazing! This is most likely because in NY, penalties for illegally operating outdoor signage are pretty hefty, when they are enforced. One can imagine that the revenue created by continuing to operate these illegal signs wouldn't make up for the massive losses incurred if the city decided to enforce their removal.

But what about other cities like San Francisco, and particularly like Los Angeles where the fines are not as hefty and where the simple task of locating all of these signs might cost the city hundreds of thousands in tax payer dollars? Will these signs come down? It would seem Los Angeles could demand their removal and forgo the treasure hunt but this is unlikely. Only time will tell how this situation will be dealt with and we will keep you informed.

Maybe The Supreme Court Wants To Weigh In On This One

This usdcsdny.pdf was sent to me regarding the Clear Channel and MetroFuel case with the city of New York. I did a little research and with the help of a friend, found out some simple facts that I think the readers of this site will find interesting.

MetroFuel-Urban Panel

So the story begins when MetroFuel sues LA after LA attempts to get the illegal wall panels MetroFuel operates removed. MetroFuel wins this initial battle and cities across the state afflicted by the same blight recoil and put off cases of their own against the company. LA then appeals this decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and wins. The rest of the country awaits anxiously for MetroFuel to request a rehearing of the Appeal. This second go at the same appeal is what we have been anxiously waiting for and it seems they have been denied their request. That's good news for everyone.

So why haven't those pesky illuminated Urban Panels begun disappearing as a result of this rehearing request? It's my understanding because we are at the last step, the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court decides to hear this case we will obviously be watching closely and reporting diligently.