Costly Fight to Ban Concerts Is Not Over for Burbank

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decisive blow to Burbank’s fight to ban rock concerts from a city-owned facility does not mean the end of the city’s legal battles over the issue.

And past and present city officials disagree on whether the fight has been worth the more than $255,000 the city has spent in defending its ban.

That amount represents damages and attorneys’ fees, plus interest, in the lawsuit filed over the city’s 1979 refusal to allow a concert promoter to stage six rock concerts at the city’s Starlight Bowl. The promoter won the suit, which was upheld on appeal.

The nation’s high court ended the city’s hopes of eventual victory Monday by rejecting Burbank’s appeal to consider the case.

City Faces Another Suit

In addition, the city faces a multimillion-dollar suit by the promoter, who seeks to recover an amount equal to the profits he would have earned if allowed to stage the concerts.

Outgoing Burbank Mayor E. Daniel Remy and his chief rival on the City Council, Mary Lou Howard, maintained in the wake of the sobering Supreme Court rejection that the city needed to fight and take the case as far as necessary, even though the cost had proved to be quite high. Councilman Leland Ayers, however, said the fight had not been worth the cost.

“Hell, no, it wasn’t worth it all for the few thousand dollars income (in police and maintenance services) it would have cost us in the beginning,” Ayers said.

In rejecting the city’s appeal, the justices upheld a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the city and former Councilman Jim Richman in 1979 had unlawfully prevented the concert promoter, Cinevision, from booking acts such as Jackson Browne, Blue Oyster Cult, Al Stewart and Patti Smith at the city’s outdoor arena.

Several council members said they feared “hard rock” artists would attract narcotics users, and Richman, a councilman from 1977 to 1981 who was named as a defendant in the suit, allegedly said publicly that the groups would attract “dopers,” homosexuals and anti-nuclear demonstrators.

Option to Cancel

The city claimed that, under the contract with Cinevision, it had the option of canceling any show that had the potential for creating a public nuisance or violating state laws or city ordinances.

A federal court jury, finding the ban was counter to the First Amendment guarantee of free expression, held the city and Richman liable for $20,000 in damages and $119,000 in legal fees. Richman was ordered to pay an additional $5,000 in punitive damages.

The city must also pay about $28,500 in interest for damages and attorneys’ fees. Doug Holland, senior assistant city attorney for Burbank, said the city must pay two additional charges: $14,908 for Cinevision’s defense fees in the appeal court and $3,016 for the promoter’s defense fees for the Supreme Court.

Holland said the city had spent an estimated $50,000 for Los Angeles attorney Tony Liebig to fight the suit. However, he said, Liebig is representing the city in the pending Superior Court suit, and much of the fees overlap.

The money will come out of a city insurance fund for the defense of lawsuits, Holland said.

A trial to determine whether the city illegally breached the contract with Cinevision is scheduled at the end of May in Los Angeles Superior Court. John Cochrane of the Los Angeles law firm that represents Cinevision said the promoter was seeking damages “in the area of $7 million to $10 million.”

Worth It to Fight?

Although he had said earlier in the week that the city had a constitutional principle to protect, even though a settlement was offered, Richard Marston, Burbank senior assistant city attorney, said Wednesday that he did not feel it was appropriate for him to say whether the city should have spent so much money fighting the lawsuit.

“It’s like an attorney for either side in a case saying whether it was worth it to fight a case hard,” Marston said.

Mayor Remy, however, said it was the city’s responsibility “not to roll over, and to stand up and be counted. We put a certain morality before us, like the Constitution itself. Hindsight is always 20-20, but lots of people have given their lives to protect the Constitution and what it stands for.”

Ayers said the promoter refused to let the city work out a settlement “because they felt they had a real good case. A settlement offer never came before the City Council because Cinevision was not prepared to let the city off the hook. We tried to negotiate, but they were not receptive to our offers.”

Money Well Spent

Richman said Wednesday that he was considering filing a suit against City Atty. William Rudell to pay Richman’s punitive damage costs.

He said he felt the money spent by the city in the legal battle went for a just cause.

“If we saved one life, it was worth it,” Richman said. “Given the number of concerts there would have been, with 5,000 people smoking grass and snorting coke, and multiply the people who might have been killed through drug use, I think the money was well worth the effort.”