Lawmakers Move to Restrict Alcohol, Tobacco Billboards

Facing potentially costly litigation with the alcohol, tobacco and advertising industries, county and city lawmakers moved Tuesday to prohibit alcohol and tobacco billboards in residential areas or within 1,000 feet of schools and parks.

In separate actions, the county Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a package of bans on ads in unincorporated areas, and two City Council committees supported a similar set of laws that now will be considered by the full council.

Lawyers for billboard owner Eller Media Co. said the city’s proposed ordinance would violate free speech protections.

“If the ordinance is adopted, we will file suit in federal court to challenge its constitutionality,” said Rex S. Heinke, an attorney for the company. Heinke said he had not reviewed the county ban passed Tuesday, but county officials said they expected alcohol or tobacco firms to sue.

The county ban allows six months for billboard companies to take down alcohol, tobacco and phone sex advertisements. The ban covers signs near child care centers, churches, playgrounds and in residential and school zones, but it exempts advertisements located next to freeways.

Tuesday’s vote adds the county to a growing list of local jurisdictions that are testing the limits of their authority to regulate alcohol and tobacco advertising in the wake of recent court rulings upholding similar laws in Baltimore, and comes as dozens of states are suing the tobacco industry to recover health-related costs.

“We’re in a climate where the correlation between tobacco use and health risks [is] more defined,” said Miguel Santana, assistant chief deputy to Supervisor Gloria Molina, who wrote the county ban. For the board to allow wide distribution of tobacco and alcohol ads while struggling to maintain a county health care system “sent contradictory messages,” Santana said.

The proposal by City Councilman Mike Feuer may be even more restrictive than the county ban because it outlaws tobacco or alcohol ads within 1,000 feet of homes, not merely within areas zoned for residential use. City officials estimate it would apply to 97% of the city’s billboards.

Despite warnings of litigation, Feuer said he believed he could muster the votes on the full council to approve the ordinance.

“I think a strong majority backs these reasonable restrictions,” he said. “We have dealt with the threats from other industries. It’s a lawsuit that we will win.”

Two committees chaired by Feuer and Councilman Hal Bernson approved the package of bans after 2 1/2 hours of testimony from academic experts, business owners and other advocates who offered sharply contrasting accounts of the significance of advertising.

Representatives of Anheuser-Busch and other firms contended billboards are far less influential in determining an individual’s decision than peer pressure or the family environment, and said ads only urge people to choose a particular brand once they have already chosen to drink or smoke.

Convenience stores and other businesses that depend on the fees they are paid to post tobacco or alcohol signs said the city ban would cripple them.

“Their only way of dealing with the problems is to affect the retailers,” said Gilbert T. Baker, state president of the California Package Store and Tavern Owners Assn. “I think the focus should be the lifestyles the kids lead.”

John P. Pierce, a UC San Diego professor who earlier this year published a study of adolescent tobacco use, said he found 34% of the teenage smokers he surveyed first tried tobacco because they were encouraged by ads or promotional campaigns.

Among all types of advertising, outdoor signs like billboards are “the most intrusive because it is impossible to turn off,” said Laurie Leiber, director of the Berkeley-based Center on Alcohol Advertising. Saying children are unaffected by such advertising, she said, is “like blaming fish for dying in a polluted stream.”