The truth comes out about
who owns
How’s this for an idea: Let’s sell off signage rights for giant electronic billboards on public property throughout the city and subsidize some massive developments?
Shame on you if you didn’t already know that Phil Anschutz is the Denver billionaire who made a down payment on buyiing L.A. — and City Hall — when he built the Staples Center with subsidies from the public.
Now while reaping the rewards of hundreds of millions of dollars in additional subsidies to the LA Live project nearby, Anschutz’s AEG global sports and entertainment empire is coming cash in hand before the City Council to seek exclusive rights to put up more than 50,000 square feet of billboard and flashing electronic signs.
Can you imagine it: Giant, ever-changing electronic billboards distracting freeway drivers 24 hours a day, defacing the architect’s design for the convention center — the pink elephant that has eaten the city treasury to make up for its huge losses..
For two million bucks a year plus a percentage of the revenue on some of the signs? How much would City Hall be worth? The DWP building? The parks? The Hollywood Sign? Griffith Park?
And the money could be used to hire more cops. You can trust the mayor’s word on that even though he says he’s unfamiliar with the details of the Convention Center proposal.
“You know, the L.A. Times supported LA Live. Virtually every business in the downtown area supported LA Live because it’s going to bring tourism, new hotels, new restaurants and jobs to the city of Los Angeles,” Villaraigosa told the Times.
“I can tell you, it’s not about political power, it’s about the economic contribution they make to the city.
OK then, we know we can take his word for it as a true Republican who believes what’s good for downtown business is good for L.A.
Fascinating! Has everyone lost their minds?
Ron, it is hard enough trying to figure out the first election November 4th, without getting into
our LA CITY elections in 2009. And Sacramento has many problems budget-wise as well. No wonder the people who have an opportunity to do so are leaving California. And that includes
the ones who are in business and do hire people.
Today, HR 5582 nationally will be voted on to decide whether or not to give green cards to aliens, cutting off jobs from 550,000 Americans who are fired in order to hire cheaper labor.
People need to call their Congressmen to
ask for a NO VOTE. LA does not need anymore unemployed men and women any more than the rest of the country does.
Oh Ron you silly rabbit!
LA Live and The Staples Center are supposed to be this big flashy Times Square-esque entertainment center and visitors there expect big billboards. As part of that overall area, the Convention Center would be well served to do what it can to earn more money. Once the hotels are up, finally the center will be able to fight to get some of the big events that go to other cities with a better developed downtown.
I know that AEG owns a good chunk of the Clowncil but I really think we’re better off fighting for Griffith Park and the Southwest Museum than worrying about the Convention Center.
The city made a deal 12 years ago and can only deal with one company now for signage for the lifetime of the lease, 45 years, according to the city council discussions. So the city is stuck with the deal it made and can’t get other bidders to maybe get MORE money.
So it looks like they are trying to maximize the amount of money coming in for advertising. They really are not considering the blight aspect that billboards pose, especially intentionally distracting ones like the electronic billboards are designed to be.
It really is a prostitution of city resources:
from the website Gazizza.net, a discussion on prostitution fits this picture (http://www.gazizza.net/2008/03/spitzer_prostitution_firefly_a.htm )
“After all, what’s the difference between a woman who services a man for $50, $5,000/hour or for a few drinks at a bar? As George Bernard Shaw put it: ‘We’ve already established what you are, ma’am. Now we’re just haggling over the price.’ ”
The council is not concerned about quality of life in terms of reduction of advertising blight as other cities are. They ARE prostitutes and just want to maximize the fee. The will sell off anything they can of the city for price.
Ed Reyes talks about poverty of the district, thus a need for money- Does that mean they get dumped on with the signage blight while it does not happpen in other parts of the city because of “higher quality of life” demands, better political representation or just WHAT? He’s already sold out.
IF THEY DIDN’T WASTE SO MUCH MONEY they wouldn’t have to look for any source for more (that they will still waste.)
An example of no frugality applied: The fee waivers continue to bleed the city for special interest of a different nature. They could use Neighborhood councils to sponsor some things and that would be a self-filtering device on merit, applying some of the $50,000.00 annual budget to some rationale, maybe, disbursement.
City Council will sell anything they can for money and still need more.
How about giving kudos to the one Council member who voted against this motion: Bill Rosendahl.
This billboard deal was made 12 years ago and, as the City Attorney told Council, they don’t have the right to alter or renege on it, nor to put it out for competitive bidding — any of those actions would result in a lawsuit that Anshutz would likely win. Plus Gerry Miller, Legislative Analyst, opined that this would not adversely effect the city’s efforts to toughen/come up with a new, more enforcable ordinance, because this billboard is on private property and subject to a long-ago deal. That’s a very different situation from enacting new deals/ exemptions, like what Jan Perry and Ed Reyes did to create a new “billboard district” in her district a few months ago, letting ClearChannel/CBS Outdoors put up 2 giant, LED billboards right next to a freeway. It’s deals like those that caused the courts to say that when the city grants exemptions for a company, the others can claim they have the same rights.
Bill Rosendahl did NOT vote against that one in Perry’s district, maybe falling for her and REyes’ class- baiting claims that some wealthy people “were more concerned with aesthetics than with the needs of the poor.” Only one other councilmember voted against that one — they clearly need to get it together about the broader consequences of granting exemptions, and to their credit, there was more discussion about the issue this time, with some caving in only because of the City Attorney and Gerry Miller assertions. (Reyes spoke out again about how the “wealthier districts” don’t understand the needs of the poor, his usual class-baiting; maybe Jan Perry had enough flack last time to be quiet this time, or maybe she just left it to Reyes.)
Janice Hahn as the other main proponent was criticized by one public commenter/ billboard blight activist for how horrible- looking her district is, especially around Watts Tower, so he wouldn’t expect her to care about blight anywhere. Touche. But this one billboard case seems outside the usual arguments. Since the city is locked in, it’s either take the money from this deal (Rosendahl is right, it should be more, bad negotiating 12 years ago) or nothing. Hahn estimates some $6M/ year if all the billboards proposed are put up. (Which would be dumb for Anshutz, since the architect who built the building is quoted in the Daily News saying so many giant billboards would ruin the design.)