Supergraphics Ruling Could Mean the End for Statue of Liberty "Murals"
Eric Richardson
[Flickr]
This SkyTag supergraphic on the California Market Center was protected by an injunction that the 9th Circuit today threw out.
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Of all the massive wall signs that popped up around Los Angeles in the last days of 2008 and first week of 2009, none provided more puzzlement than the variety of Statue of Liberty and "1969" themed works put up by Michael McNeilly and his SkyTag supergraphics company.
Two of the pieces can be found Downtown, one plastered on the glassy side of the California Market Center and the other painted on a southern face of the City West Mayfair Hotel.
Both should soon be among a number of unpermitted supergraphics that come down as a result of a decision handed down today by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that affirmed the city's right to regulate signage and voided injunctions that prevented the city from enforcement action against Skytag and signage company World Wide Rush.
Deputy City Atty. Michael Bostrom told the L.A. Times that the ruling was an “unequivocal” triumph for the city. A number of cases filed against the city by billboard companies had been in limbo while awaiting the ruling, and should now be able to be adjudicated. Also on hold was a rewrite of the city's sign code.
The court affirmed the city's ability to create site-specific rules through sign districts and specific plans, saying that its power to do so "derives from its regular and well-recognized legislative power to regulate land use."
While an attorney for World Wide Rush told the Times that he was consulting with his client about an appeal, the court did cut off one potential avenue of attack, denying an appeal the company had filed seeking more chances to amend its complaint against the city.
Rafael Esparza on May 26, 2010, at 12:56PM – #1
I'm still puzzled by that 1969 supergraphic. What is the point of that? It's not The Gap, right?
Christophe Serafino on May 26, 2010, at 01:29PM – #2
I've always liked this banner. Sad to see it go.
David McBane on May 26, 2010, at 07:31PM – #3
Rafael - The 1969 signs are not meant to advertise for any particular product. Instead, they are supposed to be "patriotic art" and thus would be protected by the 1st Amendment. The sign company's plan was that after awhile, the patriotic art would come down to be replaced by real advertising. If the City complained, the sign company would argue that their signs were there for so long, the City had given up its right to challenge them.
Basically, it is a sign company trying to abuse the 1st Amendment so it is could make more money. That is about as unpatriotic as you can get. I hope the City Attorney throws this guy in the jail as well.
DawnC on May 26, 2010, at 11:06PM – #4
Does anyone have any idea what the Statue of Liberty has to do with 1969? It's been there since 1886 or something. A pic of the moon landing would have been more apropos.
Ed Fuentes on May 27, 2010, at 01:23AM – #5
Meaning on the "1969" was covered last year on blogdowntown.
Vonn Butler on May 28, 2010, at 03:48AM – #6
Now I am REALLY confused. Two new supergraphics have gone up at LA Live in the past 2 weeks. One on the Ritz and another on the JW. What is the policy? How are the LA Live signs that cover windows cool, but the Apple signs on Highland that covered a cement building not legal? Seems like the rules are NOT applied fairly, but that's LA. If you make the right contributions, the rules don't apply.
Eric Richardson (@blogdowntown) on May 28, 2010, at 06:55AM – #7
Vonn: It's all about whether you played by the rules in going through the approval process. For those ads on the Ritz and everything else that's around the LA Live complex, AEG did. For the ones on Highland, CIM just put them up without permits.
You can argue whether or not the city should have approved those Ritz signs or about how tacky they are, but the bottom line is that they went through the public process and got the ok.
Dennis Hathaway on May 28, 2010, at 10:16AM – #8
To elaborate on Eric's points, the signs at Staples and L.A. Live are within a specific plan area called the Los Angeles Sports and Entertainment District. The city's ban on off-site and supergraphic signs adopted in 2002 allows for those sign types in specific plan areas, as well as sign supplemental use districts and pursuant to approved development agreements. A sign company can't just walk into the building department and get a permit for a supergraphic sign in one of those areas, however, there has to be a process of entitlement involving the planning department and hearings before the city or area planning commission. The difference with the Apple supergraphics on Highland Ave. is that the sign company, CBS Outdoor, put them up without obtaining permits or going through any public entitlement process. The same with World Wide Rush and Skytag, the companies involved in the 9th Circuit ruling. They just went around putting up signs and then sued the city when they were cited. The other difference--and an important one--is that the Staples & L.A. Live signs had to comply with structural and fire safety regulations before being put up, unlike the unpermitted signs that often covered office windows and even came partially loose in several instances.
For anyone interested in further details of the ruling and its implications, see www.banbillboardblight.org
DawnC on May 31, 2010, at 11:11AM – #9
Thanks Ed, amazing how someone can try as hard as they can to seem "artistic" and still when you look at what they do you are left feeling empty or at the most puzzled. I'm no art expert, but trying too hard is simply obvious in any form.
A stock photo of the moon landing (which should be in public domain thus totally free to use) with "1969?" after it would at least make you think. "We haven't been on the damn moon since '69? At this rate we'll never get to explore strange new worlds where no man has gone before!"