New 'Supergraphic' Signs Test Calif. Laws
Tenants have complained about blighted views, possible fire safety issues and, in at least one apparent contract-based claim, an adverse effect on their business. But, at least for now, so-called supergraphic signs stretching in curtain-like fashion over multiple stories of a number of Los Angeles commercial buildings apparently aren’t coming off.
After federal court rulings last year that a municipal ban on outdoor advertising violated the First Amendment, the Los Angeles City Council is still trying to come up with another version of the sign law that will pass legal muster, reports the Los Angeles Times.
Meanwhile, patients of physical therapist Patricia Barragan are complaining that her once-beautiful views of the Santa Monica Mountains are obscured by what she describes as a “horrible orange drape” on the exterior of the building advertising an international bank, the newspaper reports.
So far, it seems that the most successful approach has been to complain of possible fire safety risks posed by supergraphic signs: One building owner reportedly has been ordered to remove such a sign on that basis.
However, another business is taking a different tact, and has filed suit against its landlord contending that a 10-story sign has transformed the “conservative, prestigious environment” it agreed to rent “into one that is crass and commercial,” the Times reports.
Landlords apparently declined to discuss the issues in detail with the newspaper.
Related coverage:
LA Weekly (July 2008): “San Francisco Outdoor Advertising Company Lawsuit Mirrors Billboard Attacks Against Los Angeles”
Los Angles Times (June 2008): “Judge allows ‘supergraphics’ until court case”
