Los Angeles is losing the war on billboards.

Despite a six-year-old ban on new billboards, activists say Los Angeles' streets, sidewalks and buildings have more advertising than ever.

Court rulings, legal settlements, rampant disregard for the restrictions and weak enforcement have crippled L.A.'s attempts to limit signs and prohibit illegal signs.
There are at least 10,000 billboards in L.A., and as many as one-third of them are illegal.

Plus, there are increasing numbers of supergraphic ads that swathe the sides of buildings and minibillboard advertisements line sidewalks and private property.

But now some City Council members are considering how to rewrite the city's billboard ordinance so it can do what was originally intended: Reduce the number of signs in L.A.
"All of us believe that the city and community should be able to control how, where and when a billboard goes up in the city of Los Angeles," said Councilwoman Wendy Greuel,
who is working with Council President Eric Garcetti and Councilman Jack Weiss on a plan.
"Can we take a fresh look at the ordinance and put real restrictions on billboards in the city of Los Angeles?"

But some observers wonder whether it's too late to reverse the proliferation of billboards. And others question whether a ban is the best way to control large-scale advertisements.
Court rulings and a council-approved settlement have nearly gutted the billboard ban, and some 10 lawsuits challenging the ordinance are still pending.

The problem, billboard opponents say, is that Los Angeles leaders enacted a ban on new billboards in 2002 - but then they allowed new billboards for certain companies and in certain areas.

The willingness to ignore the ban in some situations has hurt the city's attempts to limit new billboards citywide.

Now, judges in two cases have argued that the city of Los Angeles can't have it both ways: L.A. can't ban new billboards for aesthetic or safety reasons and then exempt certain companies from the rules.

"Every time an exception is carved out ... you are making it more difficult to take control and at some point it becomes impossible," said Kevin Fry, president of Scenic America.

"The political leaders and the city attorney and the Planning Department all need to get on the same page about what they want Los Angeles to be. If they want to completely surrender the streetscape, keep doing what you're doing."

Condemned as visual blight, new billboards were banned by the City Council after more than a decade of debate. But the ordinance had problems from the start.

Major outdoor advertisers, including Clear Channel and CBS Outdoors, sued to block a new $314-per sign fee that was supposed to fund a team of Building and Safety inspectors to enforce the ban, create an inventory of billboards and crack down on illegal signs.

Even though a federal appellate court upheld the city's fee, City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo negotiated settlements with four major billboard companies that cut the fees to roughly $180 per sign and allowed them to replace more than 800 existing billboards with digital ones.
The City Council and mayor approved the settlements in late 2006 and early 2007 with little fanfare.

But now that billboard companies have installed 35 digital billboards and 20 more are pending, activists and neighbors are trying to block what they see as "Las Vegas-ization" of their communities.

In Encino, residents are fighting a Clear Channel plan to replace a static billboard with an LED (light-emitting diode) version. The Planning Department approved the new billboard, but said the digital image could change only once an hour instead of every four seconds - which would have created a "television-like appearance."

Clear Channel appealed the one-hour restriction and billboard opponents appealed the conversion to digital.

"It's so distracting and ugly. Why do we have to live like that? This is not Manhattan, 42nd Street," said Diane Rosen, who follows planning issues for the Encino Neighborhood Council.

"If that one goes in, we feel the others right along the boulevard will follow. It'll be like the Vegas strip."

Clear Channel refused to comment. At the time, City Council members defended the billboard settlements as a way to end expensive litigation.

Now, several council members privately say the City Attorney's Office didn't explain the full consequences of the settlements that opened the door to more than 800 digital billboards.
But the City Council has also weakened its own billboard ban, according to recent court rulings, when it created an exemption in the ban to allow a supplemental use district in some cases.

These districts and exceptions allowed major new signs in Hollywood and around the L.A. Live/Staples Center development downtown. Council members and developers have requested at least five more districts.

Earlier this year, the council approved another sign district - this one permitting two double-sided 76-foot-tall billboards on 15th Street along the 10 Freeway downtown, one of which would be a digital sign.

The district was part of a complicated deal that allowed Councilwoman Jan Perry to complete a wetlands park in South L.A.

Last month, a judge cited the new sign district as an example of L.A.'s uneven ban on signs when she blocked enforcement of the billboard ordinance.

World Wide Rush LLC and Insite Outdoor Works LA sued the city over the billboard ban and that case is now pending. They were facing prosecution by the City Attorney's Office for installing supergraphics on the sides of buildings near freeways in violation of the city ordinance.

But federal Judge Audrey Collins argued that L.A. has allowed at least five giant signs near freeways - including the newly approved 15th Street district.

"While the city has valid interests in preserving traffic safety and aesthetics, it has permitted multiple commercial signs within 2,000 feet of a freeway that directly undermine those interests," Collins wrote.

The court still has to rule on the legal challenge to the billboard ordinance.

Meanwhile, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to rule soon on another case that could dismantle the 2002 billboard ban.

Attorneys for outdoor-advertising firm Metro Lights argue that the city can't ban new signs for some companies while making exclusive deals with others.

The string of lawsuits and rulings prompted Garcetti to take another look at the original ban.
"It's really been stunted by court cases. It's been caught in court and it's not had the teeth to prevent illegal billboards from sprouting up and being taken down," Garcetti said.

In meetings with the city attorney and Building and Safety officials, Garcetti and colleagues have discussed restricting new signs districts or enacting a clearer policy on where to allow new ones.

"Where it's done in a haphazard way and inconsistent way, the city can't keep doing that," Garcetti said. "We need to really think strongly about the new places where we put billboards."

Other council members have said the city should also consider rescinding the ban on new billboards.

"I'd be OK with getting rid of the ban," said Councilwoman Perry. "I would rather have a (conditional use permit) process. It allows the community to decide when and where signs belong."

Likewise, some lobbyists and billboard industry leaders wonder why Los Angeles leaders would want to maintain the ban when they could permit new signs and make money.
Lobbyist Ken Spiker has represented the major outdoor-advertising companies and is now working with property owners and a small billboard company.

"They could have said, `We're going to control the market now. If you want to put a billboard up, you're going to have to share the revenue,"' Spiker said.

"There are certain parts of the city where signage is very valuable and it's wanted. We should take advantage of it and do it properly and the city should get a bang for the buck."
Even billboard opponents said it might be wise to lift the ban.

"It sounds counterintuitive. But to me, it would have the effect of getting this out of the courts and into the hands of the legislators where it belongs," said Dennis Hathaway, a Venice resident with the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight.

He worries that the council will tinker with the ordinance behind closed doors with the help of powerful billboard industry lobbyists.

Instead, Hathaway would like to see a commission set up to redraft a new sign ordinance, one that can truly regulate signs and withstand legal challenges.

"We have to come up with a good ordinance that can somehow control what's going on," Hathaway said. "Otherwise, the alternative is anarchy. Basically, right now a company can put up a sign anywhere they want with impunity."

Indeed, city leaders, community activists and some in the billboard industry have been frustrated with the number of illegal billboards and the seeming powerlessness of the Department of Building and Safety charged with cracking down on billboard scofflaws.

Councilman Ed Reyes said landlords in his district make extra money by allowing companies to slap up signs in front of rental units. But there is little enforcement.
"We could improve the ordinance and make it much more efficient," Reyes said. "That will be nothing but a gesture if we don't have enforcement."

Building and Safety officials said they do issue violations when they can, but the penalties are nothing to outdoor-advertising companies that can earn $100,000 a month for a giant supergraphic plastered on the side of a building.

"They make so much money, it's worth it for them to violate the law. If they get slapped on the wrist, it's no big deal," said Hector Buitrago, chief of code enforcement for the Department of Building and Safety.

"To do more than that takes court action."

Department officials also argue that their hands have been tied by the lawsuits and court settlements.

In 2003, the department had an inspection team ready to start permitting and checking billboards. But sign companies sued, won a court injunction and the work stopped. The inspectors were moved to other duties and the positions were eventually cut.

Five years later, the department says it can't collect the annual billboard fees because the settlements and ordinance set different figures for different companies.

"We can only enforce what's put in front of us," said Bob Steinbach, spokesman for the Building and Safety Department.

"We're at the mercy of the ordinance. We're at the mercy of the settlement agreements. Once something is in front of us that we can use and they fund the positions, we'll go do our jobs.

"Right now it's in the hands of the political and legal forces in the city."