While you can generally restrict new ones, you can't eliminate existing ones without basically paying out the lost revenue+etc to whoever is running it.
There's been a moratorium on new billboards in SF for a long time already. No new ones are getting built. Given the reliable revenue they provide, will be a long time before they naturally go extinct.
You can actually just eliminate existing ones. The government can just do things and absolutely already does whenever politicians really want something to happen (data centers, etc.). There's no law of nature that billboards must be allowed to remain where they are.
It's not a government problem - it's a constitutional one - Banning existing billboards is considered both a first amendment problem, and a takings problem.
Doing it without compensation is a constitutional violation, and even if california modified it's constitution, it would be a federal one. Less of one for sure, but still an issue.
The current law (Business & Professions Code § 5412) is a codification of what the court requires.
Banning existing billboards isn't a first amendment problem if it's not contingent on the contents of the billboard. Much like some radio frequencies are reserved, other media are forced to obey regulations.
Doing it without compensation is a constitutional violation, and even if california modified it's constitution, it would be a federal one.
Only matters if the constitution is enforced. Courts can easily overturn previous decisions. If there's a will, there's a way.
It would help but probably you'd still owe something.
Business & Professions Code § 5412 is the current controlling statute, and that is a codification of what the courts have required.
That requirement is not just a california constitutional problem, but a federal one.
So even if you modified the california constitution, you'd still have the federal problem.
The federal problem is much less than the state one (SCOTUS has found the floor here to be quite low), but it's still bad enough that feds require compensation as well. Just less compensation.
For example, 23 U.S.C. § 131(g) conditions federal highway funds on paying just compensation for removals along Interstate and federal-aid primary highways — 10% of apportionment forfeited otherwise.
I looked into this quite heavily, and had long discussions with legislators, because there was a huge ugly billboard 150 feet from my house in San Jose :)
It would still get tied up in litigation. The “takings” doctrine that requires compensation is based on the fifth amendment: “ nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
I believe regulatory changes similar to what you propose have been ruled takings in the past. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the state would lose, but this supreme court doesn’t seem particularly amenable.
Comments
Advertising should be banned. It's an attack on the mind.
You can't in california, actually.
While you can generally restrict new ones, you can't eliminate existing ones without basically paying out the lost revenue+etc to whoever is running it.
Ban new ones and that will naturally go extinct
There's been a moratorium on new billboards in SF for a long time already. No new ones are getting built. Given the reliable revenue they provide, will be a long time before they naturally go extinct.
In a lot of places, they have been banned since 1978.
They have not gone extinct.
You can actually just eliminate existing ones. The government can just do things and absolutely already does whenever politicians really want something to happen (data centers, etc.). There's no law of nature that billboards must be allowed to remain where they are.
This is just wrong.
It's not a government problem - it's a constitutional one - Banning existing billboards is considered both a first amendment problem, and a takings problem.
Doing it without compensation is a constitutional violation, and even if california modified it's constitution, it would be a federal one. Less of one for sure, but still an issue.
The current law (Business & Professions Code § 5412) is a codification of what the court requires.
Banning existing billboards isn't a first amendment problem if it's not contingent on the contents of the billboard. Much like some radio frequencies are reserved, other media are forced to obey regulations.
Only matters if the constitution is enforced. Courts can easily overturn previous decisions. If there's a will, there's a way.
What if we got a proposition that said we have to take them all down and not pay for lost revenue?
It would help but probably you'd still owe something.
Business & Professions Code § 5412 is the current controlling statute, and that is a codification of what the courts have required.
That requirement is not just a california constitutional problem, but a federal one.
So even if you modified the california constitution, you'd still have the federal problem.
The federal problem is much less than the state one (SCOTUS has found the floor here to be quite low), but it's still bad enough that feds require compensation as well. Just less compensation.
For example, 23 U.S.C. § 131(g) conditions federal highway funds on paying just compensation for removals along Interstate and federal-aid primary highways — 10% of apportionment forfeited otherwise.
I looked into this quite heavily, and had long discussions with legislators, because there was a huge ugly billboard 150 feet from my house in San Jose :)
It would still get tied up in litigation. The “takings” doctrine that requires compensation is based on the fifth amendment: “ nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
I believe regulatory changes similar to what you propose have been ruled takings in the past. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the state would lose, but this supreme court doesn’t seem particularly amenable.