E-mail
Print
Adeal's a deal. That's worth remembering this week as the city attorney's office fences with AEG, the developer of the L.A. Live project, over the imminent opening of a new movie theater at the downtown entertainment complex. At issue are six large illuminated signs that are part of the project and that the city attorney's office is denying permits for fear that they might run afoul of the city's billboard moratorium. That may seem like a tediously small issue, but the debate over those signs quickly becomes one over whether Los Angeles keeps its word and is safe for responsible investment.
The L.A. Live project has been the subject of city scrutiny since 2001. At every stage, the city has reviewed and approved it. It entered into the development agreement, approved specific plans and issued a series of permits that cleared the size, location, even the wiring for the signs in question. Based on those approvals, AEG has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the project.
As L.A. Live has moved forward, the city also has been struggling to craft coherent, constitutional restrictions on new billboards. Time and again, it has written a policy only to undermine it with exceptions. That has understandably infuriated Audrey Collins, the federal judge weighing the constitutionality of the moratorium. Recently, Collins upheld the ban on new billboards and yet allowed two projects to proceed because they already had received sign permits and thus were "vested" prior to the passage of the new law.
We applaud the City Council's efforts to halt new billboards, and we support a strong, legally enforceable ordinance. But L.A. Live built its signs with specific and repeated city authorization. City Atty. Carmen Trutanich and his staff are overreaching in concluding that L.A. Live is not "vested" because it hasn't received a final sign permit. Ifeight years of city approvals and the company's huge investments based on them do not constitute vesting, nothing does.
Compounding the problems with the city attorney's position has been his truculence. At one meeting earlier this month, he threatened to jail a city official if he granted AEG's permit. A Trutanich deputy now says that was meant in jest, but it creates an impossible quandary for a well-meaning department head when his own lawyer proposes putting him in jail.
Bombast and egotism are sadly familiar in city government, though Trutanich is plumbing new depths in both. Fortunately, the solutionis clear: The city should grant the permit, reassuring those who want to invest in Los Angeles that the welcome mat won't be pulled out from under them. If the permit is challenged, Collins should rule that this was not a backroom exception of the type she is determined to squash, but part of a long-sealed agreement that can no longer be undone. Trutanich, meanwhile, should lay off the coffee.
The L.A. Live project has been the subject of city scrutiny since 2001. At every stage, the city has reviewed and approved it. It entered into the development agreement, approved specific plans and issued a series of permits that cleared the size, location, even the wiring for the signs in question. Based on those approvals, AEG has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the project.
As L.A. Live has moved forward, the city also has been struggling to craft coherent, constitutional restrictions on new billboards. Time and again, it has written a policy only to undermine it with exceptions. That has understandably infuriated Audrey Collins, the federal judge weighing the constitutionality of the moratorium. Recently, Collins upheld the ban on new billboards and yet allowed two projects to proceed because they already had received sign permits and thus were "vested" prior to the passage of the new law.
We applaud the City Council's efforts to halt new billboards, and we support a strong, legally enforceable ordinance. But L.A. Live built its signs with specific and repeated city authorization. City Atty. Carmen Trutanich and his staff are overreaching in concluding that L.A. Live is not "vested" because it hasn't received a final sign permit. Ifeight years of city approvals and the company's huge investments based on them do not constitute vesting, nothing does.
Compounding the problems with the city attorney's position has been his truculence. At one meeting earlier this month, he threatened to jail a city official if he granted AEG's permit. A Trutanich deputy now says that was meant in jest, but it creates an impossible quandary for a well-meaning department head when his own lawyer proposes putting him in jail.
Bombast and egotism are sadly familiar in city government, though Trutanich is plumbing new depths in both. Fortunately, the solutionis clear: The city should grant the permit, reassuring those who want to invest in Los Angeles that the welcome mat won't be pulled out from under them. If the permit is challenged, Collins should rule that this was not a backroom exception of the type she is determined to squash, but part of a long-sealed agreement that can no longer be undone. Trutanich, meanwhile, should lay off the coffee.
Digg
Twitter
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Save more than
These signs will be rightfully approved. There is no reason these signs should not be approved. AEG has done their part and now LA needs to do their part. Trutanich -- you are out at the next election. Trust me. You are the biggest problem with LA -- ego with a lack of common sense and extreme near sightedness.
Long term, it is clear that downtown will become a viable hub, and any attempt to stop the momentum are futile. Look at the statistics -- people are moving downtown along with restaurants, bars, and nightlife. Any urban place that becomes transformed in a positive light starts with this. So, stop harassing well-intentioned businesses from prospering...look far people!
downtownforever (10/24/2009, 10:17 AM )