The bill mandates that any advertising display that meets defined criteria within the City of Los Angeles would not be subject to various traditional outdoor advertising regulations, provided that it complies with specific requirements. This includes stipulations such as the size, illumination, and number of signs. Additionally, if federal notice alerts the operation of displays that could lead to a decrease in federal highway funds, the display owner must remove their advertising copy within 60 days, failing which could incur substantial fines of $10,000 per day.
Summary
Assembly Bill 770, introduced by Assembly Members Mark Gonzlez and Pacheco, seeks to amend the Business and Professions Code by providing specific provisions related to outdoor advertising at convention centers in Los Angeles. This bill proposes the exemption of advertising displays at convention centers from certain regulations, specifically those that are usually applied to displays within view of public highways. The rationale behind this legislation is to support advertising initiatives in these venues while promoting economic revitalization in urban areas.
Sentiment
The discussions surrounding AB 770 indicate a mixed sentiment. Proponents argue that it would foster greater advertising opportunities for major convention centers, potentially leading to an increase in foot traffic and economic benefits for surrounding neighborhoods. Critics express concern over the implications of deregulating advertising in these areas, fearing it might lead to visual clutter and environmental degradation. The urgency clause embedded in the bill emphasizes the perceived need for immediate action to enhance economic conditions in downtown districts.
Contention
A key point of contention revolves around the bill's shift of regulatory authority primarily to the City of Los Angeles. Critics worry that this could undermine comprehensive measures in place designed to manage outdoor advertising uniformly. Furthermore, the imposition of significant penalties for non-compliance, alongside the lack of state indemnification for certain local costs, introduces complexities regarding authority and enforcement that stakeholders continue to debate.