News rack proposal intends to curb blight with license fees. (Up Front).

A proposed newspaper rack ordinance that could reach the L.A. City Council in several weeks would reduce the number of boxes on Los Angeles streets and set off a scramble among publishers for the most desirable locations.

More than a year in the making, the 14-page proposal follows longstanding complaints from business owners and residents about visual clutter and dilapidated and graffiti-marked boxes they say contribute to neighborhood blight.

After meetings with publishers, business improvement districts and neighborhood groups, Los Angeles Public Works Commissioner Janice Wood said the city has come up with guidelines that she said would balance property owners' concerns with the First Amendment rights of publishers to distribute their products.

The new rules, which were unanimously approved by the board of the Public Works Department earlier this month, would for the first time require that all news racks be licensed by the city. Publishers would pay $10 per rack for an initial license and a $6 annual renewal fee. In addition, racks would have to be maintained or they could be impounded by the city, and new racks would have to be treated with an anti-graffiti substance.

Some of the proposed rules are more favorable to publishers. For example, the number of news racks permitted in a single location would increase to eight from the current three, although that restriction has been minimally enforced at best.

Publishers also fought off an attempt to mandate that all racks be a uniform color, arguing that the loss of brand identity could harm circulation.

Still, the imposition of fees and new rules specifying precisely where racks can be located would likely result in a reduction of the estimated 30,000 boxes in the city, Wood said.

"All of us are going to have to accept that we are going to have fewer racks on the street," said Ron Hasse, circulation director for the Daily News of Los Angeles. "We are going to have to adjust and make sure we find the right locations."

Slaking claims

But if a desired location is also claimed by other publications, there could be problems. "If you have a limitation of, say, six racks and there are 10 there now, who goes?" asked Hasse.

According to the draft ordinance, enforcement of the new rules would be introduced in phases, with an emphasis on safety and licensing in the initial months after passage. Breaking up clusters of racks that do not compromise public safety would not occur until 24 months later.

The proposal suggests that in such a case "the owners of news racks shall attempt to work out a voluntary relocation process" that would take into account how long a publication's rack has been at that location. Publishers are supposed to compromise, but if no deal can be made, the city would weed out publications by giving preference to those with daily and weekly circulation. If the problem persists, the city would basically draw straws and the losers would have to pick up their racks or face confiscation.

"Nobody is going to be totally happy with the outcome, but it seems like there's finally some real steps being taken," said Mike Menza, circulation director for the LA Weekly. "We would have preferred a non-fee based system but we had to give that up to get some things we wanted."

The fees will be particularly burdensome for smaller publications like the Downtown News, which was among the newspapers meeting with the city.

"It's a big expense. L.A. Downtown News has hundreds of racks on the streets," said Sue Laris, the paper's editor and publisher. "But the expense will be worth it to nail down the rules -- if they stay fair. For years, we haven't known what was allowable and what was not."

With passage by the Board of Public Works, the proposal now moves to the City Council's Public Works committee. If approved, as expected, it could be brought to the council in a matter of weeks.

"I think it's very likely that the basic elements will stay in place," Wood said.

Kerry Morrison, executive director of the Hollywood Entertainment District BID, praised the efforts to govern news racks, but she said the new rules would mean little unless they are backed up by real enforcement.

"We're spending $2 million a year to clean up the area and it's very frustrating to walk from corner to corner and see blighted news racks," Morrison said. "They have an impact on the whole area. It's like the broken windows theory."

Digtating debate

In the past, publishers have successfully fought off regulation by making Constitutional arguments regarding the protection of both commercial and noncommercial speech. However, courts have been giving more weight to arguments by municipalities about aesthetics and public safety, said David Hudson Jr., a research attorney with the First Amendment Center in New York.

In the L.A. proposal, for example, news racks would be prohibited within five feet of a fire hydrant or other emergency facility.

"There's been a continued stream of litigation about news racks throughout the 1990s," Hudson said. "It remains a murky area. Usually most parts of these regulations are upheld but there are one or two points that can be challenged."

Despite having a role in the process, Hasse and others say they are withholding judgment until they see the final version of the ordinance.

"We are in favor of providing beautification and safety to the city," Hasse said. "We are not in favor of the city dictating to us how and where to sell our newspaper."