-
07/22/2011 7:28:00 AM
Dear Sirs/Madam:
Hello,everybody, I am Dalynn,from Shenzhen Uniview LED CO.,LTD in China.
Today I write to inform that we are one of the leading manufacturer in LED displays. We trust that our superior quality, attractive design and competitive price of our products would enable us to defeat the competitors.
LED Display Application: Hotel lobby, Stage, Advertising, Rental, Performance applied for indoor and outdoor both for temporary and permanent.
Our Main Advantage: RD with excellent innovative products, superior quality control and whole life technique support with personality specialized service.
Our Unique products: LED Ball (P10, 1m), IPAD (P3.89/P5.18/P6.22/P7.78/P10.36,Indoor super slim, light led display), OPAD (P15.625/P20.83,Outdoor super slim, light led screen, Curtain led screen(P12.5/P15.625/P20.83/P31.25/P18.75/P37.5), Floor screen(P16) etc.
Our General Products:P10/P12/P14/P16/P18/P20/P25/P32/P36(outdoor LED display),P5/P6/P7.62/P8/P10/P12/P14/P20(indoor LED display).
It will be highly appreciated your promptly reply about your any specify requirements on projects or future business cooperation. Would you mind add my MSN or Skype for our further business talking, thanks in advance!
Best regards,
Dalynn
Company: Shenzhen Uniview Led Co., LTD
MSN: caodailian@hotmail.com
Skype: caodailian1
Gmail: caodailian@gmail.com
Email:sales11@univiewled.com
URL: www.univiewled.com
-
Caodailian 07/22/2011 7:21:00 AM
Dear Sirs/Madam:
hello everybody. I am Dalynn,from Shenzhen Uniview LED CO.,LTD in China.
Today I write to inform you remember us, we are one of the leading manufacturer in LED displays. We trust that our superior quality, attractive design and competitive price of our products would enable us to defeat the competitors.
LED Display Application: Hotel lobby, Stage, Advertising, Rental, Performance applied for indoor and outdoor both for temporary and permanent.
Our Main Advantage: RD with excellent innovative products, superior quality control and whole life technique support with personality specialized service.
Our Unique products: LED Ball (P10, 1m), IPAD (P3.89/P5.18/P6.22/P7.78/P10.36,Indoor super slim, light led display), OPAD (P15.625/P20.83,Outdoor super slim, light led screen, Curtain led screen(P12.5/P15.625/P20.83/P31.25/P18.75/P37.5), Floor screen(P16) etc.
Our General Products:P10/P12/P14/P16/P18/P20/P25/P32/P36(outdoor LED display),P5/P6/P7.62/P8/P10/P12/P14/P20(indoor LED display).
It will be highly appreciated your promptly reply about your any specify requirements on projects or future business cooperation. Would you mind add my MSN or Skype for our further business talking, thanks in advance!
Best regards,
Dalynn
Company: Shenzhen Uniview Led Co., LTD
MSN: caodailian@hotmail.com
Skype: caodailian1
Gmail: caodailian@gmail.com
Email:sales11@univiewled.com
URL: www.univiewled.com
-
Eric 12/17/2008 7:03:00 AM
What an outrageous insult to the citizens of LA--all of these obnoxious billboards, the arrogant companies the force them on communities, and their toadies in local government!
At the very least any self-respecting citizen of LA should be:
1. Working to drum worthless shills like Garcetti out of office, along with anyone else not in favor of a permanent ban on all future billboards and "modernizations" and a drive to remove the vast majority of the ones in existence.
2. If the city doesn't act against the billboards, you should--in a manner of your choosing.
3. Inform billboards that you won't be giving them your business and that you'll encourage others to join you in your boycott.
It's we all declare on the blight of billboards and the large companies that want to make a profit of the degradation of our neighborhoods.
-
concerned taxpayer 12/14/2008 1:47:00 AM
These billboards are also subject to property taxes by the county. If you investigate, I think you would find they are being underassessed. Income property should be assessed based on their income stream, not based on construction costs.
But many thanks, Ms. Pelisek, for the terrific reporting.
-
Dennis Hathaway 11/29/2008 6:46:00 AM
Mayoral candidate Walter Moore is correct in stating that the city lost the Metro Lights case in U.S. District Court in Aug. 2006. However, that case had nothing to do with the lawsuit settlement that gave Clear Channel, CBS, and Regency the right to convert 877 conventional billboards to digital. Metro Lights challenged the city's 2002 off-site sign ban, but Clear Channel and the other companies only challenged the billboard inventory and inspection program that was adopted at the same time as the ban. In that case, the city actually prevailed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, so Eric Garcetti's statement that the lawsuit settlement was forced by the fact that the city lost in court doesn't hold water. It also makes the settlement's giveaway to the sign companies especially outrageous.
Hopefully, all candidates in the upcoming city elections will get their facts in order on the billboards issue.
-
Jill Stewart 11/28/2008 12:00:00 AM
Response to Reader "Eric" who asked us where writer Christine Pelisek gets her data showing that 877 LED billboards have been approved in Los Angeles:
The Los Angeles City Council, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo agreed to a formal, legal deal with Clear Channel Outdoor, CBS Outdoor and Regency Outdoor that lets them erect 877 digital billboards in Los Angeles, gives these firms broad powers to decide where to put them, and prevents citizens from using normal environmental review laws to stop them.
Eric, the reason you have not really noticed them in your area is that, so far, about 50 of these 877 digital billboards have been turned on. There are another 820 or so to come. No neighborhood is exempt.
Because the City Council, as members Garcetti, LaBonge and Zine now admit, had no idea what it was approving when it voted yes on this deall, the Council instituted virtually no controls. So without a tremendous amount of work, you, a citizen, cannot find out where the next 50 digital billboards are going to be erected.
Sadly, if you see a work crew transforming a traditional billboard face into an all-black face, that means it's too late for your street! A darkened, all-black billboard means that nearly 500,000 ultrabright LED lights have quietly been installed -- and will soon be turned on. After that, huge ads for cars and banks, once visible for a few blocks on the old billboard, will now be visible for several miles.
-
Ibencruzin 11/27/2008 7:45:00 PM
We had the same problem however, there were people who knew this would be a major issue. Fortunately, visual clutter and and horrible light blight was averted temporarily. We are still fighting based that these things can go two places: 1. Private Property if there is no Conditional Use Permit (c u p) 2. Only in redevelopment areas. I would suggest taking a look at what qualifies as blight and even though it is bringing in a proposed 3/4 of a million dollars annually your quality of life is ruined for as long as LA is willing to pander to these sign companies for a revenue source.
Fighting the contract won't be easy but if any redevelopment dollars were used to create the blight you may have a shot. Other than this Government will continue to spend to bring this to you ans all along the freeway and neighborhoods.
-
Walter Moore 11/25/2008 8:25:00 PM
When Garcetti said the City lost a lawsuit re billboards, he was correct -- and it was losing that lawsuit that cost the City the legal ability to regulate billboards.
The name of the relevant lawsuit is Metro Lights, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 488 F. Supp. 2d 927 (C.D. Cal. 2006). In a nutshell: the City actually formed a partnership with a billboard company, and EXEMPTED its own signs from the rules that applied to all the other sign companies. The Court ruled that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: the City could no longer justify applying its rules to other sign companies.
So the City blew it all right, but blew it by trying to go into the business itself.
And the case was decided in AUGUST 2006, which explains the settlement in SEPTEMBER 2006.
-
Walter Moore 11/25/2008 8:21:00 PM
When Garcetti said the City lost a lawsuit re billboards, he was correct -- and it was losing that lawsuit that cost the City the legal ability to regulate billboards.
The name of the relevant lawsuit is Metro Lights, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 488 F. Supp. 2d 927 (C.D. Cal. 2006). In a nutshell: the City actually formed a partnership with a billboard company, and EXEMPTED its own signs from the rules that applied to all the other sign companies. The Court ruled that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: the City could no longer justify applying its rules to other sign companies.
So the City blew it all right, but blew it by trying to go into the business itself.
-
ric montejano 11/21/2008 10:03:00 PM
spectactulars? why don't we just call them magical gifts from above so precious that we should pluck out our eyeballs and feed them to german shepards just for the undeserved privalege just to see them?
/
-
Rob Herman 11/21/2008 9:43:00 PM
You folks in L.A. think you have got it bad! Come to the residential neighborhoods of Las Vegas (yes, Virginia, there are a lot of nice, up-scale residential areas in the Valley. In fact, when we are on the freeways, the digital signs are so bright that we navigate our location and direction by these signs, literally miles away. (I'm sure that the airliners use the same "navigation lights" when they approach McCarran international airport!)
-
FED UP IN LA 11/21/2008 5:57:00 PM
I have lived in a beautiful, quiet section on the Westside for 50 years, and every day I am assaulted by the visual and aesthetic monstrosities going up on the streets...Westwood Bl, Sepulveda, Santa Monica Bl., etc!
It feels like Tijuana, or some other third world hellhole! What's next...pimps and whores selling their wares 24/7 ??? Dog and pony shows???
Shame on the greedy, money-grubbing whores who call themselves "leaders" of this (third world) city!
-
Jane 11/21/2008 4:35:00 PM
V is for Victory
-
Pico&Gateway :( 11/21/2008 10:16:00 AM
Thank you LA Weekly for keeping the spotlight on this important issue.
Who are the people behind this billboard blight? They should be shunned!
-
Eric 11/21/2008 8:21:00 AM
Where are you getting the 800+ number for digital billboards??? There will be quite a few but I haven't seen numbers of that magnitude anywhere else. Please cite your source.
-
Crash 11/21/2008 7:32:00 AM
This is what slingshots and rocks are for. Wise up.
-
Joshua Reyes 11/21/2008 6:36:00 AM
Enough of this! This is absurd and sick; for too long have Southern California homeowners decided the fate of this town. For too long has Dennis Hathaway spread lies on the environmental impact of LED Billboards. And for too long have we not fixed our policy towards billboards, regardless if theyr'e digital or not. You're so-called "billboard blight" definately applies to residential neighborhoods, but it has no merit in commercial and entertainment districts and corridors. I have spoken to some small business owners who say these plain or digital advertisements( or "spectaculars" ) as they're called, are vital to they're business. So what if it looks like Times Square? Is there a problem with that?
BTW, Manhattan has recently installed a completely wind & solar-powered LED in Times Square.
Do I work for the billboard industry ? Of course not; but I am a renter who is sick and tired of seeing our city fall to the order of Homeowner Associations that have whined about issues like these and economic development with these sick "traffic" & "anti-green" excuses.
Henceforth, I suggest you people do your homework on the backround of these advertisements before you deliberately try and selfishly twist the direction of our city to you liking.....its getting annoying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED#Advantages_of_using_LEDs
-
bearcross 11/21/2008 12:55:00 AM
Glad you included the detail of who's who and did or knew what in this whole mess, including that it's Jan Perry and Ed Reyes who have continued right upto the Anschutz discussions a few weeks ago, to actively deride those who oppose billboard blight and their spokespeople (from HOA people like those quoted here to Hathaway/Silver of Ban Billboard Blight) as selfish westsiders "more interested in aesthetics than in the plight of the poor," in Perry's words pushing for the billboard district you mention here. She went on to deride the selfishness and callousness of such people, and linked their stance on billboards and ClearChannel with a lack of parks for the poor.
(ClearChannel was cleverly offering to kick in some bucks toward a park she wants in exchange for her advocating for their putting up the LED's along freeways and elsewhere, while refusing to comply with even the feeble deal Rocky made with them in 06.) Ed Reyes keeps saying the same thing, that "those who oppose these billboards don't know what it's like to be poor." As head of PLUM, Reyes' hostility to community members opposing illegal & LED billboards has been especially disturbing. Let's hope Garcetti finally explains the facts of life to him and Perry.
Wesson doesn't seem to have made such socially divisive/ derisive statements, but more like Garcetti, just seems to see them as a cool addition to redevelopment in Koreatown. (Maybe it makes the Korean developers think of Seoul, but the nearby residents don't want to live adjacent to that or Times Square, any more than the residents of Silverlake or the Hollywood Hills or we do in Brentwood.)
Still, the ignorance of Wesson, Hahn and even Garcetti about the bigger implications of their allowing "exemptions" which the courts have used to invalidate the whole ordinance (saying the City can't selectively enforce it), or just how deeply Rocky sold us out in 06, is stunning.
Big question is, where to from here? Can the City collect on the $1 billion in revenues -- sales tax would be almost $200 million. Can the city craft a ban that allows exemptions in highly commercial areas only? Can the city insist that it get its fair share or halt all billboards for violating community plans and on environmental grounds?
Can the city impose fines on these co's for refusing to comply with mandate to identify and remove illegal signs?
-
janet 11/20/2008 10:06:00 PM
While I agree that the Council should have taken its time to evaluate the billboard proposal they reluctantly approved that fateful day in Sept. 06, you should note they approved it with displeasure by at least some of the members that the City Attorney/ Rocky Delgadillo had presented it to them with a "do this or we'll be sued and lose" ultimatum.
The Council had in fact passed a Billboard Ordinance intended to stop just this kind of proliferation back in 02, and sent him to negotiate with Clear Channel/CBS Outdoors to do the opposite -- demand an inventory of all their and other companies' billboards, to take down illegal ones estimated at 4000 and pay some $350/ year inspection fee for the legal ones.
Instead, Rocky came back having negotiated the inspection fee down by half, and giving that one company alone the "right" to convert or "modernize" (more innocuous word) upto 900 or so of its conventional billboards to the lighted LED monstrosities. But he went ahead and signed this deal without first presenting it to the Council as being contrary to what he'd been sent out to do. Hard to see where he got the nerve, or was he just dumb, taken in or what.
Seems since then the companies won't budge and even refuse to give the city a list of all their billboards -- Rocky's been quoted saying that's proprietary information, then saying he fully intends to push forward the city's will.
Meanwhile a few Councilmembers made separate deals with ClearChannel allowing them to violate the Ordinance fora few bucks, giving the courts cause to invalidate the whole Ordinance and sending the matter back to the drawing boards. Now private citizen groups like mine have taken to the streets to inventory the illegal things ourselves, since some city inspector said his dept. doesn't have the money or capacity to do this for years.
Finally Eric Garcetti has even woken upto the problem, despite his New York-izing parts of Hollywood. These monsters spilling physically and visually into residential areas and even parklands is crazy, and if the companies don't take them down people will do more guerrilla tactics like this thing in Silverlake, I'm sure. Then there's the "green" aspect, the enormous energy waste -- something Garcetti is always talking about as "green" building concerns.
What makes me maddest is the $1 Billion these companies are raking in for ruining our quality of life while our city gets nothing but headache, getting dissed, and keeps raising taxes and fines on us the taxpayers to try to plug its massive budget deficit. Getting a fair shake on billboards, the same sales tax revenue as on everything else, would make a huge difference. There has to be some way to override Rocky's inane deal, even if it means risking a lawsuit -- the companies are suing LA often enough anyway.
-
Tammy 11/20/2008 8:12:00 PM
Thank you Christine for such a comprehensive article on billboard blight in Los Angeles.
This is a case of gross negligence on the part of our city officials and one would hope they work quickly to repair the literal mess they have made of our city.
-
Brother Dallas 11/20/2008 7:22:00 PM
Yes - Money shouldn't drive all decisions
Yes - city surroundings & environmental aesthetics should be considered
Yes - City Hallers were politically persuaded & prodded with payments (thats politics sweethearts)
BUT - Please check the GREEN credentials here: seems to me that A Truck to drive the workers, to use the chemical based glue, to roll-up a paper Billboard to 100's of Billboards 100's of times a year has just been stopped. AND i believe LED lights are among the most efficient available.
How about a moderated response & effort:
1. Reduce ambient light - maybe with blinders or another creative solution
2. Pressure on the companies who advertise here to understand the impact of the sign
