View Mobile Site

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos


Steve Petzold: City Council: repeal the billboard deal

Posted: June 22, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: June 22, 2014 2:00 a.m.

The Santa Clarita City Council meeting this Tuesday will be the first chance for council members to consider the implications of the referendum against Ordinance 14-02.

This ordinance approved a development agreement with the county Metropolitan Transportation Authority for the removal of 62 off-site billboard advertising structures from the Metro railroad right-of-way and the development of three digital message centers at locations owned or controlled by the city of Santa Clarita.

The city and Metro would split the net revenue — not the gross revenue — with Allvision and another billboard management company over a 50-year period.

During the month of May, more than 18,000 individuals signed a referendum against the ordinance, and the Los Angeles County clerk verified more than 11,000 of those signatures.

In June, Dean Logan issued a letter of findings certifying the referendum and returning the petitions to the city for custody and control.

The primary discussion is no longer over the benefits or problems with the ordinance, but how the council decides to respond to the petition result.

There are two options available to the council on Tuesday.

The short referendum summary attached to each petition reads in part “ordinance 14-02 be reconsidered and repealed by the City Council or that it be submitted to a vote of the People of the City of Santa Clarita at the next regular election or at a special election called for that purpose.”

Last Sunday, The Signal’s Editorial Board came out in favor of an election. Many residents, including me, who have followed the issue and actively oppose the ordinance politely disagree.

We believe that given the success of the referendum, the only reasonable decision, after deliberative consideration, is to repeal the deal!

Repeal of the ordinance will allow this city to begin the healing process, end the acrimony, and give citizens a chance to weigh in with their care and concerns.

We did not have that opportunity during the closed negotiations the city held exclusively with Allvision and Metro.

If, after open communication with the public, the Metro deal is deemed to be the best (highly doubtful) we can go back to the agency in one year’s time. Metro is not leaving Los Angeles County.

A ballot election would be confusing for the electorate. In a very strange twist of events, the effect of the ordinance was changed within one hour of Ordinance 14-02 approval.

During a late-night vote that required special approval due to council norms, the City Council paid Edwards Outdoor Advertising $1.3 million in taxpayer funds to remove 47 billboards, including 22 that were referenced in the approved ordinance.

Why did the city pay separately for removing 35 percent of the boards in the Metro deal without additional compensation?

The ordinance that must be brought to a vote of the people has changed substantially and is no longer the one the council approved.

The electorate should not have to suffer the massive confusion the council has created. Repeal is the only fair answer to the referendum result.

We should allow city staff and council members to hear from the community about whether we desire digital billboards at our precious gateway areas. Numerous cities have rejected them, including Carlsbad, Vista and Palo Alto in California alone.

The billboard companies, including CBS and Clear Channel, have given convincing presentations that we could eliminate more signs and get more money by dealing with them directly. Let us hear and consider their proposals.

Time is on our side. But going directly to the ballot with this ordinance is wasteful of time and money.

The city staff has estimated the cost of a special election to be more than $220,000. If an election is held, Santa Clarita will become a battlefield between the billboard industry and Allvision.

The eyes of the nation are upon Santa Clarita on the billboard issue. The City Council should not place its citizens in the crossfire.

Together we can come together as a community to consider this project and all the others that may be available.

If one thing is certain, the approval of Ordinance 14-02 was terribly flawed in its planning, development, consideration and terms.

I urge my fellow citizens to attend the Tuesday evening council meeting. Let us gather in bipartisan unity to encourage our City Council to reconsider 14-02 and repeal the deal.

Alternatively, you can email to reach all five members. Simply write “Reapeal the Deal” in the subject line, and include your name and the area of the city in which you live.

Should you have any question, concerns or comments, you may call me at 661-609-1739.

Steve Petzold is a Saugus resident.



OldReliable: Posted: June 22, 2014 9:52 a.m.

It's certainly no secret that City Hall has pursued billboard removal for many years, without complaint I might add, and now that we've reached this crossroad, the will of The People should be heard via ballot.

jvfarley: Posted: June 22, 2014 10:07 a.m.


Thanks for your hard work on behalf of the citizens.

RemStarr: Posted: June 22, 2014 10:30 a.m.

Mr. Putzold, you're opinion is ANTI-AMERICAN!
Let the PEOPLE decide!
Put it to a vote of the PEOPLE!
That's the AMERICAN way!

chefgirl358: Posted: June 22, 2014 10:47 a.m.

Thank you for such an in depth explanation of the issues, I had no idea the city changed the deal at the last minute and forked out $1.3Million. That's a lot of money. I guess the only part I don't understand is, do they have to give the money back since the deal is off the table for the moment, or are the still going ahead with removing some billboards?

CaptGene: Posted: June 22, 2014 11:05 a.m.

If they made the deal without voter approval, they don't need voter approval to repeal the deal.

Thanks Steve for all your work on this!

lars1: Posted: June 22, 2014 4:45 p.m.

The question of whether there should be an election for the Allvision Billboard deal is no longer the pressing issue.
The real question is who does our city council represent: the public or those who buy them off.

Local government and the County can act is ways that protect the public.
Santa Clarita .....Policy CO 6.6.3: Restrict establishment of billboards throughout the planning
area, and continue abatement efforts to remove existing billboards that impact scenic views


But our city council: weste, mclean and kellar only represent those who "buy them off"!

Arthur Sohikian, who has been hired as a lobbyist for Allvision, threw Marsha McLean and Laurene Weste a fundraiser just days
after the first yes-vote for the billboard deal from which Allvision will reap hundreds of millions of dollars.

This Mr Sohikian is used to buying public officals and getting things done for private companies.

The city of Santa Clarita appoints this Mr Sohikian to a committee position within the City.

Allvision, the company that would be getting hundreds of millions from the "billboard deal" hired blockers to stop the California Constitutional right of the public to sign the billboard referendum objecting to digital electronic billboards along the freeways.

When the Santa Clarita City council and local sheriffs were made aware of the Allvision blockers, they chose to do nothing.

Mr Kellar was made aware of the results of the billboard referendum. In his usual manner he chose to degrade the public, those majority who signed the referendum as not knowing what they were doing, and a "bad day for Santa Clarita".

The vote tally of the billboard referendum to stop digital electronic billboards along the freeways was almost 13,000 voters.

This was just about the same number of voters in the last City Council election.

We have lost trust in kellar, weste and mclean, Just as in their origional vote on the "billboard deal", their minds were made up even before any public discussion on the issue. The city's web site was a joke. It was a farce to show the issue was "put out to the public.

lars1: Posted: June 22, 2014 4:47 p.m.

This was just about the same number of voters in the last City Council election.

We have lost trust in kellar, weste and mclean, Just as in their origional vote on the "billboard deal", their minds were made up even before any public discussion on the issue. The city's web site was a joke. It was a farce to show the issue was "put out to the public.

Mr Acosta was just elected to office. He is the deciding vote on putting the "billboard deal" to a public vote. Since the public spoke with signing the referendum, spending taxpayer money on an election would be a waste of money. The majority of people do not want huge digital billboards along the freeways, destroying prisine views of our valley.
People were very distressed when the city council voted to use "open space" for two of the six digital billboards.

Spending money on an election is a waste, and refering to timothymyers02 previous comment:

This is a quixotic attempt, bless their hearts. There is absolutely no way in this universe the public will approve any billboard deal.

AlwaysRight: Posted: June 23, 2014 6:19 p.m.

I hear what Steve is saying. If this gets put to a general vote, who is to say that the election will not be filled with more dirty tricks (ex: blockers)?

Money is changing hands here. The whole thing needs to be suspended until truth from fiction can be sorted out.

You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail The content posted from readers of does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.


Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...