Comments on: Helluva Morning For Mucking About With Billboards

By: Fancy Schmancy People » Blog Archive » Life Of The Mission District

Fancy Schmancy People » Blog Archive » Life Of The Mission District — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 11:29:05 +0000

[...] billboards-mission-district- missionmission.org [...]

By: johnny0

johnny0 — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 03:43:34 +0000

Somebody had permits:

http://sf.everyblock.com/building-permits/streets/mission-st/3300-3328/1-block/by-project-type/349/

http://sf.everyblock.com/building-permits/streets/mission-st/3300-3328/1-block/by-project-type/324/

Note prop G is specifically mentioned in this one:

http://services.sfgov.org/dbipts/default.aspx?page=Permit&PermitNumber=200610256007

By: umm

umm — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 02:44:58 +0000

but do they have a building permit? doubtful.

By: johnny0

johnny0 — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:15:54 +0000

From what I saw, it looked like they were replacing the existing billboard skeleton. And from what I understand, Prop G banned billboards in *new* locations. The city can go after existing signs that don't have permits, or those that are considered unsafe. Naturally, the fine people at Clear Channel are fighting this in court on 1st Amendment grounds. More at SFGate. According to the city rules, any billboards erected after 2002 and ones that do not comply with planning codes are considered to be in violation of the law. When the city identifies such a billboard, it issues a violation notice to the sign company and property owner and gives them several weeks to remove the sign or resolve permit problems or code infractions. If the owners don't respond in the time allotted, fines ranging from $100 a day to $2,500 per day can be imposed, depending on the size of the sign. Owners can challenge the violation before an administrative law judge. But if they lose the appeal and the billboard in question has remained up during the appeal, they are charged a fixed penalty of $2,000 to $50,000 depending on the size of the sign. That being said, Clear Channel doesn't seem too quick on the draw - they just covered over Silence after two months, and Hater has lasted even longer. All the more reason to hope for the Silence and Girafa treatment!

By: zinzin

zinzin — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:45:45 +0000

test

By: glot

glot — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:01:35 +0000

Am I the only one who thinks that Clear Channel's been eating crazy pills? What happened to 2002's Prop G? You know, the one which created SF municipal planning code section 611 which reads: No new general advertising signs shall be permitted at any location within the City as of March 5, 2002 That ordinance is the reason we don't have as many billboards as we already do, and it's the reason the famous "17 Reasons Why" billboard on 17th and Mission was finally taken town and replaced with a big 33' visual fart. Well… I'm off to write my supervisor.

By: Allan Hough

Allan Hough — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:25:31 +0000

Good call.

By: johnny0

johnny0 — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:23:53 +0000

Wow, that's cool to see from both perspectives. Now all we need is a photo from Bernal! I want Silence.