The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

"L.A. weighs changes in billboard law"

Excerpts:

"The Planning Commission forwarded the draft sign law to the council last
month with three of its nine members dissenting, largely because of fears
about more districts.

Although the law would ban new billboards in much of Los Angeles, Planning
Commissioner Mike Woo warned that the smaller sign districts would mean
'open season' for new billboards and supergraphics, multistory images that
can cover one or more sides of a building.

'I consider the Hollywood sign district to be a real fiasco,' said Woo, a
former councilman who represented Hollywood from 1985 to 1993. 'It has
resulted in a proliferation of signs, many of them with no relevance to the
unique quality, theme or character of Hollywood.'

Redevelopment officials have approved 11 sign agreements in Hollywood over
the last four years, giving permission for 23 multistory supergraphics, four
double-sided roof signs and two electronic message displays.

In exchange, property owners agreed to pay fees and remove 12,000 square
feet of signage, or the equivalent of 18 billboards, according to
redevelopment officials.

Even with those agreements, redevelopment officials found 15 to 20
supergraphics without permits in Hollywood just three months ago. The agency
also identified three cases in which the city had given written permission
for new signs, only to find that property owners had put up additional
outdoor ads without permits."

[snip]

"Then there are the lawsuits. SkyTag, a Beverly Hills company that boasts
that its images are 'so large they can be seen from space,' persuaded a
judge to shield six Hollywood buildings from enforcement of the city's sign
law. Meanwhile, City Hall lobbyist Ben Reznik sued the city on behalf of the
Roosevelt Hotel, a historic monument on Hollywood Boulevard whose owners
want to keep a supergraphic on the building's east-facing side."

Lots more:


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/valley/la-me-signs24-2009may24,0,1939732.story

I would welcome those giant building-side billboards to downtown Tulsa. That's part of being downtown. You see a visual cacaphony in those old downtown Tulsa photos: signs, banners and visual noise everywhere. Nowadays it's a bunch of blank walls and tiny signs.

In other revitalizing downtowns, they have giant coverings over 10 floors of a building advertising their loft conversions. Here we have a tiny little 10-foot wide sign like the one on the Mayo Building, or nothing at all. We need more giant urban-looking signs and fewer generic billboards for bail bonds or whatever.

Question:
Do billboard companies lease the "right-of-way" or "air space" for their billboards from private land owners?  Or do they own the land on which their billboards are located? 

Just curious.  I get grumpy when I drive down the road and see 4 billboards crammed in a row.  I'm sure these are "grandfathered in" from previous times before we had any billboard regulations, but I'm wondering how it all works.

They generally lease the space from landowners and generally it is for a rather hefty fee. 

If you have questions about the industry you could try calling Whistler signs.  They are a local company and the guy that runs it is very nice.   I'm sure he would be willing to talk in generic terms with you about the industry.