clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Per City, Blvd6200's Billboards Can Go Ahead

New, 12 comments

The City Council passed their judgment today on that supergraphic melee at Blvd6200, and they've denied Regency Outdoor Advertising's appeal to a community plan approved by the Central Area Planning Committee in April that allowed Blvd6200 developer Clarett to put up numerous signs. As part of the plan for seven supergraphics, Clarett traded in sign credits it earned through a sign "reduction" program (which bestows two square feet of supergraphic for every one square foot of billboard taken down), but Regency thinks those credits are theirs, since they actually owned the traded-in billboards.

Regency's been denied by the city, but Plan B is already underway--we mentioned last week that they've filed a lawsuit, which according to PLUM's report is "between Regency Outdoor Adverting, Clarett Hollywood LLC, and the City relative to the rightful ownership of the sign credits." Regency has tangled with the city before: in 2006 it took the matter of city-planted, billboard-obscuring Palm trees on Century Boulevard to the California Supreme Court and lost. And this 2005 LA Times article runs through many of Regency's legal fights, including multiple employee-related lawsuits, several suits arguing "that laws restricting billboards were unconstitutional limitations on free speech," and a misdemeanor charge (for one of the co-owners) of putting up a billboard without a permit. There are also accusations of bribery, smear campaigns, and Palm tree tampering.
· Rumble At Hollywood's Blvd6200! Developer, Billlboard Company Fight Over Signs* [Curbed LA]
· Suddenly, a forest popped up [LA Times]
· Big Sign Firm Accused of Corruption [LA Times]