Billboard Tiff Turning Ugly

After the Santa Clarita City Council approved a deal to take down 118 billboards along railroad tracks and replace them with just three digital billboards by the freeway, it appeared that city beautification had won the day. Not so fast. A petition driven by local residents who dislike digital billboards and financed by the California Outdoor Advertising Association could force the city to rescind the agreement or put the issue to a vote by residents. A furious campaign has assembled about 18,000 signatures opposing the agreement and has sparked allegations that one company that would benefit from the deal tried to intimidate citizens from signing the petition. “It has been like a soap opera in the worst way,” said Vanessa Rodriguez, a spokeswoman for the advertising association. The county is currently reviewing the petitions, and if at least 11,170 of the signatures are deemed legitimate, the Council must rescind the deal approved March 25 or hold a referendum on the matter. The review could be completed by June 5. The billboard reduction effort is part of a long-term beautification plan being conducted with the assistance of the L.A. County Metropolitan Transit Authority, or Metro, which owns the tracks and has taken down similar billboards in other cities. The Santa Clarita plan specifically involves taking down 118 print boards on property along the Metrolink commuter line through the heart of the city. The digital billboards would be two-sided and placed along the Antelope Valley (14) and Golden State (5) freeways on land the city controls. Metro hired AllVision Inc., a New York advertising company, to manage the new digital billboards, with revenue to be divided among AllVision, Metro and the city. The rail line billboards are owned by CBS Inc. in New York, Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. in San Antonio, and Edwards Outdoor Advertising in Santa Clarita. Because Edwards is a local company, the city reached an agreement to buy its 22 boards along the tracks plus a few extras located elsewhere for $1.3 million. However, CBS and Clear Channel did not receive buyouts, Rodriguez said. Faced with losing their billboards without compensation, CBS and Clear Channel asked the California Outdoor Advertising Association to get involved. Ironically, the trade group teamed up with Citizens Against Billboard Blight in Santa Clarita, a grassroots organization. Patti Sulpizio, a Valencia resident and a spokeswoman for the citizens group, said her organization’s main motivation is to prevent the digital billboards along the freeway – even though she dislikes the existing ones too. “They are not pretty or aesthetically pleasing, but they aren’t causing potential rear-end collisions. They are not emitting light 24-7,” she said, adding they are not affordable to local businesses. “It’s for drive-through traffic. Big corporations will buy advertising to reach people driving up the 5.” Blocker investigation The campaign to overturn the agreement began last month with a combination of local volunteers and paid signature-gatherers at tables in front of area stores. Rodriguez said that on Easter Sunday she received a phone call that volunteers had been intimidated and yelled at by people whom she later learned were hired by AllVision. “It was the first news of this huge issue between gatherers and blockers,” she said. The campaign sent a cease-and-desist letter to AllVision and PCI Consultants Inc., a Calabasas political consulting firm working with AllVision. The letter stated that the hired people were “using threatening mannerisms and shouting at the circulators in a specific and coordinated effort to intimidate and dissuade Santa Clarita voters from approaching the circulators.” The letter also said the blockers used physical threats and assaults. The Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, which handles law enforcement in Santa Clarita, arrested several people in connection with the signature-gathering, according to a spokesman for the department, but could not identify which side of the issue the suspects supported. AllVision and PCI did not respond to a request for comment. Whatever the outcome of the incident, though, this much is certain: with the alliance of the state advertising association and an anti-billboard citizens group wanting to kill the deal, and the trio of Metro, AllVision and the city hoping to preserve it, the financial implications have become complex. Bob Kellar, one of three councilmembers who voted for the freeway signs, said people for years asked him how to get rid of billboards and he had to tell them it was cost prohibitive. Now, the digital billboards promise to bring about $500,000 in annual revenue for the city. “This is a phenomenal deal and I’m optimistic we will move forward,” Kellar said. But Richard Hamlin, an attorney specializing in billboard law at the firm Hamlin Cody in Westchester, said the deal depends on Metro’s power to cancel the leases with CBS and Clear Channel without compensation – a premise he believes is illegal. The leases were originally signed with railroad companies. When Metro bought the tracks in the early 1990s under eminent domain, the government’s right to take private property for public use, it could have cancelled the leases but decided to retain them as a revenue source, Hamlin explained. Now if Metro wants the signs down, they have to compensate the companies, and the courts have decided the value is based on the “reasonable expectation the leases will continue indefinitely,” he added. “Metro has the right to terminate the leases, but they are exposing themselves to big liability,” Hamlin said. “The city is also exposing itself to big liability.” Hamlin Cody has settled cases in which billboard leases were valued from $700,000 to several million dollars each, although those were freeway billboards that are generally more valuable than railway signs. Hamlin, who once represented the advertising association before the City Council and has worked in the past for CBS and Clear Channel, said the deal also puts Metro in the advertising business, a move he believes is outside its charter. “This sets a dangerous precedent – a city could go into any business and put competitors out of business,” he said. “Advertising is not a government function.” Resolution For now, all sides are awaiting the verification of signatures to plan their future moves. Paul Gonzales, senior media relations officer at Metro, said the agency is “sitting on the sidelines.” The Metro board will not approve the contract with Santa Clarita until the electoral issue is resolved. “We have taken the item off the board agenda, and it won’t appear until at least the June board meeting,” he said. “It’s in the hands of the people of Santa Clarita now.” Gail Morgan, communications manager for Santa Clarita, said the city’s official position remains in favor of the deal because the Council approved it on a 3-to-1 vote with one abstention. Assuming the petition has sufficient signatures, the Council could rescind the ordinance at its meetings on June 10 or June 24. Otherwise, a referendum could appear on the November ballot, or the city could hold a special election before then. Kellar maintains the signature-gatherers succeeded by asking people if they opposed digital billboards, without explaining the deal would also remove boards along the rail tracks. He believes that once voters understand the measure, they will approve it. “If it goes to the vote of the people, I hope the citizens will take time to know the facts,” he said. “I think the vote will be overwhelming for the removal of the billboards.” And no matter what happens to the existing billboards, if the city decides to erect digital signs, both Sulpizio from the citizens group and the state advertising association want the management agreement with AllVision set aside. “If the city would have opened the bidding process to the various billboard companies currently operating businesses in Santa Clarita, we believe a better deal providing more revenues to the city for local services would have been reached,” the association said in a statement.