Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Billboard Initiative topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Inglewood council to preserve Wow Media revenue and reject billboard initiative
Summary
Residents and faith leaders told the council that the "billboard blight elimination" initiative would strip millions in recurring revenue from the city and asked that any change be put to a public vote; the council received and filed the city's impact report on the measure.
Hundreds of residents told the Inglewood City Council during an extended public-comment period that a ballot initiative to ban advertising on certain public property would strip away a major municipal revenue stream and shift marketing power to private stadium operators.
The city received and filed a city-manager'prepared impact report on the "billboard blight elimination and neighborhood preservation initiative," which warned the measure would remove the city's authority to permit advertising in the public right of way, eliminate guaranteed advertising revenue and expose the city to breach-of-contract lawsuits. The report argues the initiative is a targeted anti-competitive effort by large venue operators and could erase millions in general-fund revenue that the report says are used for parks, street repairs and public-safety programs.
Why it matters: commentors said the city's revenue-sharing agreement with Wow Media supports parks, pothole repairs and public-safety staffing at large events; they warned losing that income would force painful cuts or new taxes. Bishop Johnny J. Young, a pastor and longtime local civic leader, said the partnership "generates concrete revenue that directly funds our parks" and called eliminating it without a public vote "a slap in the face to every taxpayer." (Speaker S10)
Several public speakers accused a council member of a conflict of interest. One commenter (S11) told the council, "Councilwoman Gloria Gray holds two incompatible elected positions," a claim repeated by others during public comment. Councilwoman Gray later told the meeting she had "absolutely no involvement" in any decision denying meeting access to members of the Bostick family and said she did not request or support such actions.
Staff position and legal context: the city manager's report, presented at the dais, said the initiative would change the general plan and municipal code in ways that could trigger substantial litigation and fiscal exposure. The report cites California election code procedures and notes that because the original cap and related advertising arrangements were established by a voter initiative, any material change likewise requires voter approval.
What the council did: after hearing public comment and receiving the staff impact report, the council voted to receive and file the document. The vote was recorded as unanimous.
What comes next: receiving and filing the report does not adopt the initiative or change city law. Public speakers continued to press the council to place any ordinance that would remove the advertising program on the ballot and to be transparent about negotiations with private venue operators.
