The billboard outrage

The Weekly's loooong look at how the city handles billboard regulation - either ineptly or corruptly - hones in on the unsavory role several high-level politicos, most notable City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo. His much ballyhooed settlement with the major billboard companies looks wimpier by the year. The settlement was an outgrowth of the companies appealing the city's 2002 ban on new billboards.

The deals with Vista, Clear Channel, CBS and Regency mystified experts in the billboard wars, setting off rampant speculation since 2005 that city leaders are shills for billboard companies, and that Delgadillo has been corrupted by accepting free billboard ads promoting his campaign. “The city settled with the industry even though they were winning in the courts,” recalls Kevin Fry, president of Scenic America, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit advocacy group. From the outside, it appeared that Delgadillo had lost control of the talks, then agreed to concessions that, Fry says, “had nothing to do with the original issue in the lawsuit. [The lawsuit the city won] was about fees.” But “the settlement went way beyond that.”

One of the more incredible terms approved by Delgadillo, the City Council and Villaraigosa gives two billboard companies six years to take down just 98 nuisance billboards — just 3 percent of their inventory. The billboard owners were even allowed to choose those they wanted to get rid of, Fry says. “It was so minuscule.... The billboard companies will take out the least-performing, least-profitable signs. We found the settlement unsettling — and bizarre.”

[CUT]

But the biggest coup was the quiet move by Delgadillo, the City Council and the mayor, still widely unknown to L.A. residents, to let the offending companies “modernize” 877 billboards by transforming them into highly lucrative, controversial, ultrabright LED displays. The deal will affect scores of neighborhoods, introducing large LED signs said to be visible even through drawn curtains. The agreement was reached so quietly that even Wu, Hathaway and Silver — the Davids fighting the giants — heard about it too late to stop it.

There's a lot of gag-worthy stuff in the piece even if you discount a certain percentage of the Weekly’s typical hyperbole (there’s virtually no counterpoint from the aforementioned city officials). I mean, how does the city not have a database of billboards, and why is the information that it does have so incomplete and inaccurate? “It was the worst settlement agreement I have seen in my entire life,” says First Amendment and land-use attorney Bill Brinton. But perhaps most outrageous is the party hosted by veteran billboard lobbyist Ken Spiker Jr. in honor of Delgadillo.

After Delgadillo’s handler, Nick Velasquez, tried to appease the ragtag band, telling a Channel 11 reporter that the city attorney is not a billboard advocate, a strangely jolly Delgadillo joined the protestors on the sidewalk, declaring that the soiree unfolding inside wasn’t even “about” billboards. Clearly enjoying the rare attention from journalists, he jovially pledged, “I am on your side ... I have a bill in Sacramento ... I need the facts ... Let’s get together and solve this problem.” One activist called out, “What about the appearance of this?” referring to his campaign help from the billboard industry and his decision to associate with billboard lobbyist Spiker. Hollered another: “When the settlement was made, it was made behind closed doors!” “No, it wasn’t,” retorted Delgadillo. Before ducking back inside, he added, “and thanks for being here.”

Like I said, gag-worthy.