Oakland’s billboard market is dominated by two multinational corporations, the largest of which, OutFront, controls 60% of the market with over 150 billboards across the city, less than a handful of which offer anything in the way of community benefit. To the contrary, they are often in inappropriate locations like 100% residential neighborhoods, poorly maintained, etc. For 20 years, under existing law, they have been raking in millions of dollars per year from their Oakland signs alone and offering nothing further.
Then, in December 2020, in accordance with the City’s existing ordinances, you all voted unanimously to initiate changes to our City’s ordinance, specifically to explore allowing new signs on private property by development agreement and requiring that such signs offer significant community benefit to organizations that are often left out and left behind. That process is underway with city staff working diligently to bring something forward in the coming months.
Now, out of the blue, after 20 years of offering nothing, and in an overt end-run around the existing process you all initiated, OutFront bullies forth a proposal to secure a sweetheart deal on four new signs? Further, in their “proposal” they list a bunch of supposedly city-owned properties, and it turns out that none are city-owned nor nearby city-owned properties?
Please don’t fall for this. Pull 3.11 or vote it down.
Please pull or vote down Item 3.22.
Oakland’s billboard market is dominated by two multinational corporations, the largest of which, OutFront, controls 60% of the market with over 150 billboards across the city, less than a handful of which offer anything in the way of community benefit. To the contrary, they are often in inappropriate locations like 100% residential neighborhoods, poorly maintained, etc. For 20 years, under existing law, they have been raking in millions of dollars per year from their Oakland signs alone and offering nothing further.
Then, in December 2020, in accordance with the City’s existing ordinances, you all voted unanimously to initiate changes to our City’s ordinance, specifically to explore allowing new signs on private property by development agreement and requiring that such signs offer significant community benefit to organizations that are often left out and left behind. That process is underway with city staff working diligently to bring something forward in the coming months.
Now, out of the blue, after 20 years of offering nothing, and in an overt end-run around the existing process you all initiated, OutFront bullies forth a proposal to secure a sweetheart deal on four new signs? Further, in their “proposal” they list a bunch of supposedly city-owned properties, and it turns out that none are city-owned nor nearby city-owned properties?
Please don’t fall for this. Pull 3.11 or vote it down.