Originally Posted by SCRUB

A billboard company sued LA after their street furniture program placed ads in prohibited areas. It's still a question how our city will handle that matter here.

http://www.urbanblight.org/furniture...tfurniture.htm

Originally Posted by METRO LIGHTS, L.L.C., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant.

The City's adoption of the Sign Ordinance after establishing the Street Furniture Program through its contract with Viacom creates a similar situation here. The City, on the one hand, enacted the Sign Ordinance for the express purpose of promoting traffic safety and eliminating visual clutter, while, on the other hand, awarding a large contract that permits its contractor to do precisely what its Ordinance prohibits. In short, the two operate at cross purposes. On this point, the Supreme Court has held that:

There can be no question that a prohibition on the erection of billboards infringes freedom of speech: The exceptions do not create the infringement, rather the general prohibition does. But the exceptions to the general prohibition are of great significance in assessing the strength of the city's interest in prohibiting billboards.