In the ongoing legal battle between Regency Outdoor Advertising and the city of Pomona, the core issue lies in the alleged breach of Proposition L, which prohibits new billboards, sparking a lawsuit that seeks the removal of existing billboards and has now progressed to a jury trial slated for June 2023.
The contention began over a contract that permitted billboards along freeways, with its extension being a major point of contention. This lawsuit’s cause of action centers around the purported violation of Proposition L, which was voter-approved and aims to ban new billboards.
The relief sought through this legal action is the potential removal of these contentious billboards. Currently, the lawsuit is in a state of active litigation, with the billboards in question displaying warning signs about the lawsuit, significantly impacting the community’s visual landscape and opinions.
Pomona Billboard Lawsuit Explanation
The lawsuit centers on a contentious battle over the right to maintain and erect billboards along key freeways in Pomona. It challenges the city’s agreement with Regency Outdoor Advertising in light of Proposition L’s restrictions. At the heart of this legal action is a dispute that pits the interests of a prominent advertising company against a voter-approved measure designed to regulate the proliferation of billboards.
This intricate legal battle was initiated in February 2019 when it was argued that the city’s 2014 contract extension with Regency violated Proposition L. It allowed new billboards, contrary to the restrictions set forth by the local electorate.
An appellate court’s ruling underscored the violation, noting that the new billboards erected under the extended agreement directly contravene the mandates of Proposition L. This decision has propelled the issue into ongoing litigation involving Citizens for Amending Proposition L, Regency Outdoor Advertising, and the city of Pomona.
At the heart of this contentious issue is Regency Outdoor Advertising, the owner of the billboards that have sparked the lawsuit. Their primary concern is maintaining the visibility and profitability of their advertising spaces, which the legal proceedings directly contradict.
The City of Pomona, named as the defendant, finds itself in a precarious position. Having entered into a 1993 agreement with Regency, the city’s management of billboard regulations is now under scrutiny. This legal challenge not only questions the city’s past decisions but also its authority in regulating local advertisements.
On the other side, Citizens for Amending Proposition L steps into the fray as the plaintiffs. This group’s involvement underscores a community-driven effort to reshape the cityscape’s visual aesthetics and possibly its advertising norms. Their lawsuit against both Regency and the City of Pomona signals a push for change, grounding their actions in concerns that likely extend beyond just billboard appearances.
The cause of action
In analyzing the cause of action, it’s clear that Regency Outdoor Advertising’s extension contract with the City of Pomona, purportedly allowing new billboards contrary to Proposition L, sits at the core of this legal dispute. This controversial contract extension is the linchpin in the lawsuit, challenging the boundaries of Proposition L, which was explicitly designed to restrict the proliferation of new billboards without direct voter consent.
The plaintiffs argue that this agreement not only contravenes the spirit of Proposition L but also directly violates its stipulations by enabling the erection of new billboards. This legal action underscores a significant clash between local governance and public mandate, with the court’s ruling against the 2014 extension agreement highlighting the judiciary’s stance on upholding voter-approved restrictions.
The essence of this legal battle pivots on the interpretation and enforcement of Proposition L. By invalidating the contract extension, the court’s decision emphasizes the principle that agreements facilitating new billboards can’t circumvent the explicit will of the voters.
Relief being sought
Central to this lawsuit is the demand for the removal of billboards that stand in violation of Proposition L. This legal action underscores the plaintiffs’ determination to see the enforcement of the voter-approved prohibition on new signs, which they argue has been directly violated by the continued presence and proposed expansion of these billboards.
Further, the lawsuit seeks a definitive court ruling on the legality of the 2014 contract extension between Regency Outdoor Advertising and the city of Pomona. The plaintiffs contend that this extension, which allowed for new billboards, fundamentally breached the terms set forth by Proposition L. They’re urging the court to recognize this violation and to mandate the removal of the billboards upon the expiration of the original agreement.
Key events and timeline
At the heart of this ordeal is the 1993 ballot initiative, Proposition L, which has been the focal point of a lawsuit indicating a protracted dispute stretching over decades.
For more than 30 years, there has been a dispute over who owns the billboards, particularly those that Regency Outdoor Advertising controls along particular freeways.
This dispute has recently taken a new turn with the deployment of warning signs on the billboards, a strategic move aimed at deterring the city from demolishing them. This action represents the latest chapter in a saga that revolves around the intricate legal battle concerning the ownership and destiny of these billboards.
At the heart of this legal action is the court’s decision that the billboards violate a voter-approved prohibition on new signs, specifically under Proposition L. This ruling could lead to the potential removal of the billboards, marking a significant turning point in the lawsuit.
The appellate court’s findings that an agreement extension for new billboards contravened both the letter and spirit of Proposition L are pivotal. This proposition was explicitly designed to prohibit new billboards in the city, aiming to curtail visual clutter and preserve the aesthetic of the community.
The court’s ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, because the city’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, and lacked evidentiary support, underscores the legal scrutiny being applied in this case.
Turning our focus to the current status of the Pomona billboard lawsuit, it’s evident that the legal battle has reached a critical juncture, with the jury trial set for June 2023. A resolution to the ongoing lawsuit that Regency Outdoor Advertising filed against the city of Pomona in February 2019 is getting closer.
The billboards at the heart of the dispute are currently displaying warnings of legal action against their demolition, signaling the intensifying standoff between the parties involved.
An appellate court has already ruled that the billboards violate a voter-approved prohibition on new signs, setting a significant precedent for the case. This ruling complicates the situation further, as it directly challenges the legality of the billboards’ existence.
The lawsuit has already sparked division within the community, with some seeing the billboards as an eyesore and others viewing them as a vital part of the cityscape. The legal action against anyone involved in the dispute, from the city officials to the billboard company, underscores the seriousness of the situation.
With years of legal wrangling already behind us, the June 2023 jury trial looms as a pivotal moment that could set a precedent for future billboard regulations in Pomona.
The involvement of the Citizens for Amending Proposition L adds another layer of complexity to the case. This group’s insistence on adhering to the voter-approved prohibition on new signs has been a driving force behind the appellate court ruling that could lead to the billboards’ removal.
Reflecting on the implications of the Pomona billboard lawsuit, it’s clear that community reactions have been both varied and intense, offering a rich tapestry of opinions on the matter.
The legal action between Regency Outdoor Advertising and the City of Pomona hasn’t only highlighted the contentious nature of the billboards themselves but has also catalyzed broader discussions on urban aesthetics and local governance.
On one hand, supporters of the billboards view them as a necessary deterrent, arguing that their presence prevents potentially undesirable actions by the city, such as demolition. They see the fight to keep the billboards as a battle for preserving a form of expression and commercial opportunity.
Conversely, opponents see the billboards as an eyesore and a source of division within the community. They argue that the legal battle represents a significant waste of resources that could be better allocated toward more pressing community needs.