Admittedly, aside from a beautification prospective, the billboard issue was a topic I didn’t follow closely at first because of the old “no dog in the fight” thing. Then the floodgates opened with protests, signature gatherers, blockers, confrontations with shoppers at our stores and now a ballot measure to vote on. When an item is important enough to be on a ballot, it’s important enough to take some time and study.
One of the numerous public misconceptions is that many thought every billboard around the city, like on Lyons Avenue, would be eliminated. Many decried, “What about the small business owner”? That concept is not in play here.
Many residents simply see Measure S as a “yes” or “no” to three electronic billboards on two of our freeways and a “yes” or “no” to the removal of a number of static billboards within the city.
Some confusion has arisen because while Councilman Bob Kellar urges a “yes” vote and Councilman Boydston urges a “no” vote, they are both in favor of the electronic boards and the removal of the static boards.
Ordinance No. 14-02 addresses eventual removal of 62 billboard structures (118 faces) on Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) property within the city of Santa Clarita; property along the railroad tracks. The agreement would include the city allowing construction and placement of three large digital boards (six faces): two on the 14 Freeway and one on Interstate 5.
Currently the city receives no billboard money. Metro owns the subject property; Allvision is a broker-agent in contract with Metro to procure advertising, and Clear Channel is a billboard company.
Measure S was placed on the ballot via a petition process after the City Council agreed to a deal that would accomplish the goals of Ordinance 14-02 and purportedly generate revenue to the city of up to $1 million per year.
Earlier, Council Members Kellar, Marsha McLean and Frank Ferry voted for the agreement, Member Boydston voted against it and Member Laurene Weste abstained due to a perceived conflict of interest. A petition drive ensued to place the measure on the ballot, spearheaded by Boydston and supported financially by billboard companies, particularly Clear Channel. A “yes” vote on Measure S allows the matter to go forward, whereas a “no” vote sets it aside.
Some Pro-“S” arguments are:
* Metro has agreed to cancel and remove all billboards on its property within Santa Clarita and pay the city annual revenue in return for permission to construct and manage three electronic billboards on city property. That annual revenue is purportedly to be $500,000 to $1 million;
* City beautification;
* Promote community activities such as the Cowboy Festival, Concerts in the Park, etc.;
* New digital boards will display police and fire messages – a public safety benefit;
* Supports small business with advertising discounts available to local businesses.
Some “con” arguments are:
* The electronic billboards could be a distraction for drivers (the same could be said of any billboard);
* The agreement made was not the best one to be gotten;
* Voting “no” now could result in a better deal later;
* The city attorney’s “impartial analysis” mentions 62 billboards even though Edwards Outdoor Advertising (22 billboards) has been bought out by the city for $1.3 million;
* Prior City Council actions caused the anti-movement to gather signatures for the fight. (Full disclosure: Most of the signature gatherers were not local people, and they were paid for each signature obtained).
The response to the “no” side is that perhaps the deal is not the absolute best deal imaginable; however, it is the known bird-in-the-hand versus the unknown two-in-the-bush later.
Of importance is that Clear Channel was invited to come in with proposals, and they have never responded. Without question, there are no guarantees of a better deal later if this one is lost.
These mentions are but a few of the details; it’s valuable to research and ask questions.
In my time of observing the pros and cons, I’ve noticed that with each anti-“S” writing published in various forums, there seems to be a new nuance or some new number or allegation thrown in, while he pro-“S” position doesn’t waiver. Just an observation.
I’ll add that there’s a lot of nasty, unnecessary garbage on blogs about this topic and about specific personalities. This ought to be a business topic for our community, debated truthfully with maturity and acumen, versus uninformative and juvenile attacks.
Please go to http://billboards.santa-clarita.com, then Ballot Materials for details and input from both sides and make your voting decision accordingly.
Betty Arenson has lived in the SCV since 1968 and describes herself as a conservative who’s concerned about progressives’ politics and their impacts on the country, her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. She says she is unashamed to own a gun or a Bible, couldn’t care less about the color of the president’s skin, and demands that he uphold his oath to protect and follow the Constitution of the United States in its entirety.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
REAL NAMES ONLY: All posters must use their real individual or business name. This applies equally to Twitter account holders who use a nickname.
10 Comments
Tell the truth Betty.
Clear Channel and CBS were never invited to make proposals, Betty Arenson is misinformed. At the Planning Commission meeting on January 7, a Clear Channel representative asked for thiryt days to prepare a proposal and sit down with the City manager. They were rebuffed by the Council and City Staff.
There are no guarantees of a better deal? Well this one gets worse with every airing. Plus, i do not want billboards like The Citadel shopping center, bottom line. Leave the static boards alone.
Ms. Arenson, Thank you for your excellent commentary. Just two points of clarification for you. 1)I am NOT in favor of digital billboards if the majority of people are not in favor, and I am definitely not in favor of the locations of these digital boards. Vegas and Times Square may be great locations for digital boards, but open space and neighborhoods are not. 2)Clear Channel was NOT invited to come in with their proposal by staff or the City Council. There request to do so was turned away by staff because there was a deal on the table from Metro. It is unfortunate that one of the Lobbyists for Allvision is perpetuating this myth, by asking where their deal is.
“Tell the truth Betty”?? As in I am lying? At least moments later I moved up to just “misinformed”. I’ll leave the lying to others. I had a very sane, pleasant meeting with the anti-S side and your comment is the FIRST time I have ever heard that anyone besides Edwards stepped up to deal with the City. I did not know Planning Commission meetings were open to the public. Remarkably, out of all of my comments, THIS is the one that got your attention??
Ms. Arenson thank you again for your balanced approach to this issue. Those who read your columns regularly know that you research the heck out of them. There is a lot of data on this issue. Thank you for letting us know that we are not getting the word out about the Clear Channel offer.
That is weird!. When I posted my earlier comment only Steve’s two were there. Now when I look, others replied also…like the posts are out of order. Anyway, my information is not that three digital boards will be of the flashing Las Vegas style. Also, TimBen I did not know that your position on billboards is qualified with the caveat you stated. As for the various presentations on the meetings between all of the parties …… no wonder SCV residents are confused. It’s dizzying.
Electronic billboards display a static image that changes approx. every 7 seconds, like a slideshow. Contrary to what was published recently in a local paper, they are NOT like the Auto Dealers’ electronic reader board that is currently on I-5 in Valencia.
Every single dollar used to finance the blockers during the Referendum and for Yes S comes from the family and friends of Allvision’s CEO Greg Smith.
Mr Kellar never acknowledges the attempts by Clear Channel and the CA Outdoor Advertising Association to engage the city in meaningful negotiations. City Manager Striplin did not make an effort to get the best deal available.
During Kellar’s term as Mayor he never informed the public of the effort to introduce digital billboards into the Gateway areas of our community. His decision to not involve the public was strategic because digital billboards are controversial.
The billboard structures are the property of Clear Channel and CBS Outdoor. We don’t want Metro’s land we want to relocate the billboard structures.
The side deal with Edward’s Outdoor increases the chances for a lawsuit and large legal settlement to the billboard companies.
I don’t remember the last time I saw Betty Arenson at a city council meeting. Has she even read the Ordinance and Development Agreement. I have, and it stinks. A net deal with no guarantee of revenue. Allviion gets paid from the gross.
Vote No and hit the reset button…if this is the best deal bring it back in a years time. Nothing bad will happen.
Steve, quell the anger. I wrote an article after talking to both sides and set forth the differences as I heard them. Neither one of those “leaders” of the “S” Measure disagreed with my analysis as I understood it. I did not boss people around and tell them to vote No or Yes; just do some digging and try to be informed. And from that you conclude, and state your belief, that I cannot be informed because you do not see me at enough city council meetings and further you question what documents I have read or not read. I’d make a big wager that had I absolutely sided with YOU, I would have been a VERY informed voter and you would have never questioned attendance or reading. Good luck on that “reset”.