Citizen outrage, writ large

Re “Their world looks darker through ad-covered windows,” Jan. 20, “Firm fights to keep huge signs,” Jan. 22, and “Proposed rule would ban new digital billboards,” Jan. 23

The Times does not mention the cooperation of the building owners with the “artist” -- they must be getting something from his firm.

And why do the tenants have no recourse? They must have agreed to rent their space because of some perceived value -- a view, out windows now covered. The value of what they’re paying for is diminished.

Why isn’t that grounds to break their leases? New office space is cheaper now than it’s been in years.

Lynn Parana

Los Angeles

::

I cannot understand why it is that the millions of us who actually live and work here have to be subjected to the commercial desires of a few who want to subject all of us to the hideous blight of these huge signs and electronic billboards. Do we have no rights?

These signs and billboards are a considerable distraction to drivers. If we cannot talk on a phone that isn’t hands-free or text message while driving, why is it legal for this industry to deliberately try to distract us and draw our attention away from driving?

I can’t imagine what it must be like to live where an electronic billboard invades your home and privacy 24/7. For once, let’s just say no to these advertisers whose only interest is to separate us from our hard-earned money and tell them we will not put up with their distracting, dangerous blight.

Jaycie Ingersoll

Beverly Hills

::

In my 30 years as a tax and accounting small-business owner, neither my business nor any of my small-business clients have ever advertised on a billboard.

Our advertising of choice 20 years ago was Yellow Pages ads. Today, it’s websites. Anyone who says the proposed ban is an attack on small businesses such as ours, as the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce suggests, is wrong.

Steven Coker

Los Angeles