Yes, it’s true. For the second time, in as many times as it’s been poised to come before Long Beach City Council, the City Clerk’s office has removed tonight’s discussion of electronic billboards from the Council agenda.

The removal came at the request of Third District Councilman Gary DeLong’s office. DeLong, you’ll recall, is head of the Budget Oversight Committee, which has recently been considering arts and electronic billboard issues.

And why? One theory we’ve heard is that the entire council won’t be there tonight, to discuss and consider it–so the clerk’s office is holding it until everyone can be at the same meeting.

Another theory is that with Media Management Service’s recent changes to the size of billboards it wants to put up around the city, and changes to how and how much it would pay the city, the MMS folks wanted to make sure everyone on council has a copy of–and understands–their latest proposal.

Tags: California, electronic billboards, Long Beach, Long Beach City Council, Southern California, The District Weekly, Theo Douglas, Third District Councilman Gary DeLong

Viewing 4 Comments

Juan 4 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Perhaps the council should also know that Media Management Service (MMS) is a Nevada based company that had been sued in Orange County for breach of contract. Also, will there be an open door policy when it comes to examining the accounting records of MMS for the purpose of researching how much money should be paid to the city? Furthermore, why can't MMS pay an up front retainer if they believe their product will generate millions of dollars for Long Beach? In addition, I believe, given his close relationship with MMS attorney Doug Otto, councilmember DeLong should excuse himself from even voting on the matter.

reply edit reblog flag

RKJ 4 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Come on LBch, enough settling!!! No one is opposed to the "potential revenues" that "might" be generated. God knows this city needs money. BUT, can't our elected leaders come up with something better than these flashing massive eye-sores...all to generate (maybe) somewhere between $500k-$2mm. I find it hard to believe that anybody really wants any billboard anywhere. Is this amount of money really going to amount to any lasting improvement of anything in LBch? Are the desperate LBch politicians that sell-out for anything with a glimmer of revenue hope, still in office? Look at what this way of thinking has done for the city thus far. At best, the city gets a few bucks, and we end up being the desperate, unsightly city-by-the-sea for another 10 years. Mr. Pat West how does this pass your “windshield test.”

And, Jaun's comment above, adds a whole new insight. Same old LB tricks perhaps? District/Smolar please don't lets this stone go unturned.

reply edit reblog flag

Juan 4 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

RKJ ----- "Potential revenues" at what cost? Appearantly, your elected officials can't come up with anything better. Much of the blame, can be placed on the O'Neill, Taboada and Hankla years. However, the vast majority of culpability, for the city's financial troubles, can be found in the statement of Traci-Kleekamp Wilson;"Its always the council's fault."

reply edit reblog flag

RKJ 4 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

E-Billboards, ain't going to happen. Mark my word. Next few days we will all come to hear.

reply edit reblog flag