The fight for outdoor advertising

Last week, the Imperial County Board of Supervisors heard a speech delivered by an individual identified as Victor Platero, a representative of Lamar Advertising Company and of the California Outdoor Advertising Association. The local resident told our elected officials his displeasure with state Senator Ben Hueso’s bill SB 744. According to the bill’s text the goal is to provide exemptions to at least three outdoor advertising signals located near the corner of Interstate 8 and Highway 111.

Platero told board members that the legislative proposal, which was endorsed by the county weeks ago, impacts county and state coffers by providing help to the owner, Eduardo Valerio with Valerio Resources and Marvin Carpenter, both from San Diego County and whom have allegedly supported our lawmaker during his political ventures.

The signs have violated local ordinances and even the California Department of Transportation, CalTrans, has cited the owner twice for these violations.

Both Lamar and COAA have sent letters to Hueso and Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) expressing their opposition to the bill.

According to Platero, the bill would set precedent that would allow other companies to ask for these type of exemptions while providing no funds to local coffers.

The complainant asked supervisors to review the issue, perhaps in the thinking that our representatives might change their minds.

However, after a phone chat with Hueso the topic turns very different.

The San Diegan lawmaker said a similar bill was originally introduced years ago by then-Assemblyman V. Manuel Pérez, who was recently appointed as Riverside County Supervisor by Gov. Jerry Brown. That measure was killed before making it to the Upper Chamber of the Legislature of California.

So the business owners sought help from Hueso’s office.

“They have been dealing with this issue for years now,” he said. “This is not a new effort.”

Hueso said during the conversation that the claim from the business owners is a legitimate, justified one given the only other alternative provided by CalTrans was to file a lengthy, costly lawsuit at the court.

Valerio, Hueso added, is a small business compared to the quasi-monopoly that Lamar Advertising is and that actually can run any type of advertising on its three dozen sites located in Imperial County.

Valerio placed around 1998 those advertising sites, according to Platero, but the bill’s text says they were installed before 1995. Back then, the county had no ordinances related to outdoor advertising that were later taken by CalTrans to cite the company and to request their removal.

Lamar has spent “tons of money” against the bill, Hueso said.

The lawmaker added that pushing for the proposal, especially in the Upper Chamber, has been a difficult task.

Originally introduced Feb. 17, the proposal has been referred and re-referred to several senate committees since. By the end of April, the measure was voted 7-3 in the Transportation and Housing Committee. Then, on May 30 it was approved at the Senate Floor 21-12, with seven other state senators abstaining. The measure is now on the Assembly side of the Legislature, where has been scheduled for hearing at the Government Organization Committee, whose membership includes our Assemblyman Eduardo García (D-Coachella).

According to the bill’s text, Valerio would be mandated to just run advertising products, services or goods made, sold or located in Imperial County, similar to the other outdoor advertisers have been entitled to in other California cities.

Although Hueso said he might have gotten financial support from Valerio and Carpenter, he made sure during our conversation that this issue is not a payback for political contributions as alleged by Platero.

All this leaves me wondering and intrigued with a question — why would a giant like Lamar Advertising feel impacted by three well-located outdoor advertising sites like the ones owned by Platero?