• by Erik Sass , August 11, 2009

On Friday, the municipal government of Los Angeles voted -- yet again -- to ban the construction of new digital billboards and super-graphics, replacing a six-month moratorium on billboards with a more permanent measure. This is supposed to give the L.A. City Council a more secure legal position in the wake of a challenge to the temporary moratorium scheduled for a court hearing on Aug. 17. But in typical L.A. fashion, the permanent ban itself will probably only be a temporary measure, as further revisions are planned.

The temporary moratorium was originally adopted to give the council time to formulate permanent laws, but it has been extended by three-month increments as the legislative process proved to be more time-consuming than expected. This renewal is the subject of the upcoming legal challenge by Liberty Media on Aug. 17: the super-graphic manufacturer and installer contends that the process for renewing the temporary moratorium violated California state law. Liberty also noted that certain development projects involving super-graphics and favored by the city were allowed to go forward despite the temporary moratorium; this opens the city to charges that it is prejudicially and arbitrarily regulating free speech.

To beat the Liberty court date, the vote required an emergency meeting of the council, with Councilman Bill Rosendahl cutting short his post-hernia-operation medical leave to cast the deciding twelfth vote in favor of the ban. The council, which has struggled for years to formulate restrictions that will withstand a challenge on First Amendment grounds, plans to deliberate further and pass more detailed legislation after its summer recess.

As before, opponents of further digital billboards and super-graphics say the eye-catching displays are a safety hazard, fearing they will distract drivers and cause accidents. Residential property-owners also say the billboards decrease the aesthetic appeal -- and therefore the property values -- of nearby buildings.

On the other side, outdoor advertisers and signage manufacturers say the city is wasting its time -- since no lasting ban will stand up in court -- and hurting business, since commercial property-owners count on rent payments for big outdoor displays to shore up their finances.