|
Trading Freeway Safety for Wetlands Park: Here’s What the Council Should do |
|
|
South LA
By Dennis Hathaway
By now, city councilpersons have heard myriad reasons why they should vote no on a special sign district that would allow Clear Channel to put up full-size, digital billboards on an MTA bus lot alongside the 10 freeway downtown.
 Among the most compelling are the potential safety hazard to motorists,
the precedent of opening up freeways to billboards, the violation of
city and state sign regulations, and the propriety of handing a major
plum to a company that has shown nothing but contempt for the city and
its democratic processes.
There is only one valid reason to vote yes on this sign district, and that is the fact that such a vote will allow the city to proceed with the South L.A. Wetlands Park, a project that will bring park and recreational facilities to a part of the city that badly needs them. This is a wonderful project that clearly deserves the unanimous support of the council, and Councilmember Jan Perry’s efforts to get this park for the people of her district should be applauded by everyone in the city.
At a recent hearing before the council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee, Perry asserted that a vote against the sign district would be a vote “to kill the park.” Committee chairman Ed Reyes echoed that view, saying he found it “amazing” that people from other parts of the city whose lives are completely divorced from the violence and poverty of the South L.A. area would take a position that amounts to opposing the park.
Which raises the question: Why would our elected officials countenance the framing of an issue in such a way that people with legitimate concerns about such matters as traffic safety, visual blight, and the integrity of public laws and process find themselves characterized as callous and indifferent to inner-city families dealing with poverty and violence? Why wouldn’t these public servants be working overtime to try to find ways to unite people in support of an unquestionably good cause, rather than dividing them?
Fortunately, there is a simple way for the city council to take a stand against such division, and at the same time give its emphatic support for the park. The MTA, which owns the property proposed for the park, has agreed to sell to the city on the condition that the sign district allowing the freeway billboards be approved. This, in turn, will allow them to settle a lawsuit brought by Clear Channel six years ago over the removal of billboards to make way for an unrelated street improvement project.
What the city council can do, and should do, is tell the MTA that it will vote on the sign district ONLY if that condition on the sale of the park property is dropped. If the MTA wants the sign district badly enough, it will agree, and the city council will debate the issue on its merits, without having to be seen as opposing a badly-needed park. This is the way the public’s business should be conducted, not through the cynical conflation of an admirable project with one likely to generate controversy.
Thus far, only councilman Jack Weiss has publicly questioned the MTA’s assertion that both it and the city are on the hook for millions in liability if Clear Channel isn’t allowed to put up its digital billboards alongside the freeway. At the PLUM committee meeting, Weiss cast a vote in favor of Wetlands Park but against the sign district, although such a vote is symbolic as long as the MTA refuses to sell its property without the sign district condition.
Will any other councilmembers side with Weiss? Tough to tell, although one could suggest that they pay close attention to last week’s lawsuit filed by Clear Channel in an attempt to stop the city from publicly disclosing documents listing the location and permit status of all their billboards.
Clear Channel, along with CBS Outdoor, was required by terms of a 2006 lawsuit settlement with the city to provide this information about their billboards. At the time, they tried to assert that such information should not be public because it constituted a “trade secret,” but the city council unanimously rejected that view and directed the city attorney to strike any such language from the settlement agreement.
But did that stop Clear Channel from suing? And what, councilmembers might ask, will happen if Clear Channel or other billboard companies seek more sign districts along city freeways, even though sign districts were clearly meant for sports and entertainment districts such as the Staples Center area and Hollywood. Will these companies that have amply shown their contempt for rules and regulations sue to get their way? Count on it. Dennis Hathaway is a community activist and a political observer. Hathaway is a member of the Venice Neighborhood Council Land Use and Planning Committee and an occasional contributor to CityWatch.) (Freeway billboard photo art from earlier posting on the blog CurbedLA.) _
|
