No Sign of Supergraphics Moratorium on Downtown Streets

This contempt for legal process by institutions like the Dodgers that promote themselves as civic-minded is apallingly shameful. Last week, at the city council PLUM committee, a Dodgers rep appeared hat in hand to plead for special exemptions from the new sign ordinance to allow large scale advertising on the Dodgers stadium property. They should have been told to come back after they removed every single one of those illegal Mannywood supergrapics and wrote the city a check for the same amount they paid the property owner and sign company.

i know most people dont like these supergraphics, but i think they add something to the city. they cover up things that would otherwise be bland and boring. Not all of them are ok, but i dont mind most.

Dennis, this is Downtown, home of young and lively neighborhood. Not suburbia, where residents whine about every little thing.

Your comments lack merit here.

what happened to the singage district? i don't mind them around staples center and LA live. it's just annoying to see it all over town in most random places.

Mannywood? Should say Mannyroid.

The City is going about this all wrong. They should pass an ordinance to fine the advertisers, i.e., the Dodgers, Toys-R-Us, and topps in the pic above, for example. Fine them by the square inch. That would hit Supergraphics where it hurts, and offer a clear distinction between free speech and commercial messages, which can be regulated.

Second, let's create a database of existing permitted signs, so that advertisers can check which sites are legal for advertising. Make the database easily accessible to all, so that citizens can check for illegal signage and report it.

I agree think it depends on the location, in this case viewing a boring parking structure or mannywood graphic. for the one post about having a database of locations that's been brought up before. do think its interesting as this debate continues -for or against- supergraphics our city council folks enjoy the cash contributions that these companys put in their checking accts.

Ultimately this is about a lack of enforcement. new signs get put up, nothing happens, some aspect of the city government has decided it's beneficial to do nothing.

Maybe if civic-minded drug dealers donate more money to the election campaigns the police can be persuaded to not enforce the laws against selling drugs and running a street gang.

whats it called oh yeah "pay for play" it's what makes los angeles the great place it is...

and this "free speech" BS is the lamest stunt ever. it's not a freedom issue, unless the freedom is to do whatever you want and violate the law.

Personally i dont care if thy cover every inch of town with logos like a nascar. it's the disregard and contempt for the law that's the problem.

@Eric: Hathaway, along with BBB, wants Billboards in general COMPLETELY removed from the city, including South Park (go to they're website if you don't believe me). This will most undoubtely harm business, and the city WILL eventually lose revenue, and with the status quo concerning the budget, that is not an option. That said, I think there should be tougher taxes on billboard companies and massive fines for putting up illegal billboards.

And i'm not saying I enjoy seeing tarp-like billboards like the ones McNeilly has flooded the westside with. They're crap, and these particular ads should be illegal, as they pose a fire safety hazard; not just with blocking windows for escaping, but because they could start fires if some lunatic decides to take lives by setting them on fire. Not to mention their not in major Entertainment areas like Hollywood and South Park. This includes the Chase billboard that you mentioned, as well as the eyesore green one thats currently on 717 Ninth.

Buildings like L.A. Live (and 717 Olympic) were designed to hold advertisements, because there are no windows behind them. Those, IMO, are examples of safe advertising, and should be imitated in Hollywood as well as the rest of that area.