View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

Santa Clarita releases ballot question on billboard ordinance

Posted: July 2, 2014 6:00 p.m.
Updated: July 2, 2014 6:00 p.m.
 

Santa Clarita city officials released the language of a ballot measure Wednesday regarding a controversial billboard deal that would take down dozens of billboards in the city in exchange for putting up three digital billboards off Santa Clarita Valley freeways.

The question that will be put to voters is, “Shall Ordinance No. 14-02 adopting a Development Agreement with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) for the removal of 62 advertising structures, within the city, by Metro or any other means, and construction and operation of three digital billboards, adjacent to the Interstate 5 and State Route 14 freeways, and the dedication to the city of revenue received from digital billboards, which creates an ongoing revenue stream, be adopted?”

The ordinance was originally adopted by the Santa Clarita City Council in March, but a petition drive to repeal the agreement or force a public vote on the matter was launched shortly thereafter.

Santa Clarita City Council members voted 3-1 on June 24 to put the matter to a public vote and seek to consolidate it with the county’s general election on Nov. 4 following the successful referendum drive that saw 11,370 valid signatures on petitions verified by the Los Angeles County Office of Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk.

The cost of such an election is estimated to be $208,000, according to the council’s agenda report.

Several questions were raised about the wording of the ballot measure at the June 24 council meeting, including about the number of billboards that should be listed in the measure.

While the development agreement with Metro calls for the removal of 62 billboard structures in the Metro right-of-way, the City Council has since approved an agreement with Edwards Outdoor Advertising to remove 47 of its billboard structures around the city, including 22 located within the Metro right-of-way.

 

 

Comments

castaicjack: Posted: July 2, 2014 6:20 p.m.

Didn't I tell you so? Could they possibly frame it in a more positive manner for the city than they just did? One of my previous comments poked fun at 'em by describing what might be the ballot language that included revenue for the city and here it is in the ballot measure, twice!
Geez...


bobforte: Posted: July 2, 2014 7:18 p.m.

NO: check


lars1: Posted: July 2, 2014 8:05 p.m.

But the liars have always said
"...Its not about the money...Its about blight.."


CITY LIAR PERSON GAIL MORGAN,
ANOTHER MEMBER OF SANTA CLARITA URBAN MANAGEMENT.

..From the city’s perspective, the plan is not about the potential for $450-600,000 in revenue that would result from Metro’s proposal, said Gail Morgan, city spokeswoman for Santa Clarita.

It’s always been about beautifying the city by getting rid of the billboards, she said.

http://hometownstation.com/santa-clarita-news/politics/santa-clarita-elections/santa-clarita-city-council-oks-metro-billboard


lars1: Posted: July 2, 2014 8:07 p.m.

Lets beautify the city and get some really ugly huge electronic billboards.


missyJk: Posted: July 2, 2014 8:16 p.m.

this city is becoming a pathetic joke run by a few to manipulate their way around anything..cant believe the $100 chloride sewer thing went down. Can we have our water softeners back?


stray: Posted: July 2, 2014 8:20 p.m.

@castaicjack - "Didn't I tell you so? One of my previous comments poked fun at 'em by describing what might be the ballot language that included revenue for the city"

Yep Jack... You did on June 25th.

castaicjack: Posted: June 25, 2014 7:21 a.m.

The only people being "mislead" here are those who listen to Kellar. I saw some of the streaming video last night and it's obvious the members on the council who favor the electronic billboards want the measure framed in such a manner as to confuse and control it's description on the ballet. At least Boydston opposed that ploy. It still remains to be seen what language is used on the ballot to describe the measure and be wary it might be presented in such a manner as to project a negative impression of the intent of the referendum.


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: July 3, 2014 9:11 p.m.

No big surprise here. They are depending on the lazy and uniformed that will think it sounds like a great deal. It is up to all of us to spread the word, both by mouth and by social media. Let's make sure that the rats on the council don't get their way through confusion and/or apathy.

THEY WILL NOT GET AWAY WITH IT IF WE DON'T LET THEM!!!!!!!


FrankS: Posted: July 3, 2014 9:12 p.m.

The Feds will probably give these people a plea deal to catch the bigger fish being Baca and Tanaka..hey a rhyme. These deputies are the worst kind of criminals.


chefgirl358: Posted: July 3, 2014 9:30 p.m.

It should've said, do you think we are idiots that should be voted out of office for this scam we tried to hornswaggle you all with?


BBennetts: Posted: July 3, 2014 11:56 p.m.

The city's ballot statement is a blatant lie.

Of the 62 billboards they claim are being removed, 22 of them will be removed due to a separate deal with the Edwards family. It was a different issue. We are really talking about 40 billboards now. The city needs to stop lying and be honest about this deal


scv_donn: Posted: July 3, 2014 6:30 a.m.

It's just like the government that runs the country. we keep voting the same idiots back in. You reap what you sow.


CBBB: Posted: July 3, 2014 2:50 p.m.

To say that 3 billboards are proposed fails to give an accurate sense of the visual impact of what in reality would be six separate sign faces, all broadcasting bright, changing ads for goods and services. The three supporting structures are not the important number; it is the six very large commercial advertising signs looming over the roadways.

Dennis Hathaway, President
Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight
www.banbillboardblight.org


castaicjack: Posted: July 4, 2014 10:35 a.m.

While it's a safe bet the city is busy having its heavy hitters carefully craft pro-arguments on the sample ballot, who speaks for us and the 18,000 plus people who passed the referendum? Who will place the no-arguments in the sample ballot opposing the city council's stance on the issue, the same council that voted to ignore the will of the people?



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 abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com 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 ...