Billboard Payback?

A few years ago, I counted the billboards I passed going to work in the morning. I counted them facing either direction, on either side of Sunset Boulevard. There were 36. My commute is four miles long.

The L.A. City Council and City Attorney seem exhausted by their fight with the billboard companies, which sue and appeal, sue and appeal, to keep reasonable laws at bay as long as possible. Meanwhile, those companies rake in about $2 billion a year. And they are desparate to hold on to this income. This from an AP business story on Oct. 31, for instance (italics mine):

Clear Channel Communications Inc., which is examining whether to sell all or parts of itself, said Monday that third-quarter earnings fell 9.5%, but the largest operator of radio stations in the country eked out higher-than-expected profit and revenue....

Revenue from Clear Channel Outdoor, which sells advertising on billboards and at bus stops, rose 8% from a year earlier. Outdoor revenue grew 12% in the company's Americas segment.

So of course Clear Channel and CBS Outdoor sue. They have nothing to lose, and money to gain each year they put off regulation. While the Regency settlement, already given final approval, seems like small potatoes it's particularly distateful. That company's shady practices were the subject of a 5,000-word investigative story in Oct. 2005 by Times' staffer Ted Rohrlich. They were also suspected poisoning trees that blocked views of their billboards near LAX.

But as we all learned this week in the drama-laced Tennie Pierce case, the mayor can in fact veto such settlements. So I took some hope from a small detail deep in Rohrlich's piece. Back in 2001, when Regency was doling out free billboard space to political candidates, it gave $260,000-worth to James Hahn -- who was running against now-mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Mr. Mayor: payback time?