The Brief

When public officials tasked with holding criminals accountable cheat to win a conviction, it can lead to reduced sentences — even freedom — for other convicted criminals, sometimes dozens of them. It can also give people who were wrongfully convicted a shot at redemption.

A new tally released earlier this month lists criminal cases against 57 Orange County defendants that were tainted as a result of official misconduct uncovered in the trial against the county's deadliest mass shooter, Scott Dekraai, who gunned down eight people at a Seal Beach salon in 2011.

In these cases, which include 35 homicide cases, charges against a defendant were dropped or lessened, or the defendant was granted a new trial. For five defendants, all charges were dismissed.

"Either an innocent person was charged or a guilty person went free, neither of which we like as a society," said Maurice Possley, senior researcher at the National Registry of Exonerations.

The tally was done by Scott Sanders, the O.C. assistant public defender who, nearly a decade ago, was largely responsible for exposing the county’s notorious "snitch scandal." The number of cases tainted by the scandal is much higher than previous, publicly released estimates. And Sanders said there could be many more.

"I'm not saying it's complete by any nature," Sanders said of the list. "It's not."

On top of the cases already impacted by the snitch scandal's long reach, Sanders outlined dozens more cases in a recent court filing that could be revisited because of new evidence of potential misconduct. That misconduct, Sanders alleges, was carried out by O.C. law enforcement officers and a former top prosecutor who is now a superior court judge.

"Whether those cases get justice is very much in question at this moment," Sanders told LAist.

The O.C. District Attorney's Office has yet to file a formal response to Sanders' allegations, which the public defender says justify dropping murder charges against one of his clients. An initial court hearing on the matter is scheduled for Friday in San Diego.

Here's how misconduct uncovered in one case can affect so many other, seemingly unrelated cases.

Assistant public defender Scott Sanders (right) surfaced evidence of a secret, unconstitutional jailhouse informant program while defending Scott Dekraai (left), accused of killing eight people in a Seal Beach beauty salon.

(

Mark Boster-Pool

/

Getty Images

)

O.C.'s snitch scandal, a recap

The official misconduct uncovered in the Dekraai murder case, which has been confirmed by courts, internal investigations and the Department of Justice, was twofold: misusing jailhouse informants, commonly known as snitches, and hiding information about it from defendants.

The misconduct happened under the previous O.C. district attorney, Tony Rackauckas, who lost his re-election bid to current district attorney Todd Spitzer in 2018. Spitzer has implemented reforms and pledged not to tolerate cheating among prosecutors and law enforcement.

Rackauckas, who is now in private practice, did not immediately return a voicemail left on his cell phone asking for comment.

Harvard law professor Alexandra Natapoff said jailhouse informants are a common feature of the U.S. criminal justice system. But the way the system works, and its abuses, are often kept quiet.

"Every once in a while there's an enormous debacle … that shines a light not just on an individual jailhouse snitch, but the marketplace within that particular jail," she said.

That's what happened in the Dekraai case.

"Orange County, I think, can fairly be said to now be the poster child for the institution-wide jailhouse snitch scandal model," Natapoff said.

It's not illegal for authorities to use confidential informants — in or out of custody — to collect information. But once someone has been charged with a crime, the Sixth Amendment and subsequent court decisions guarantee them the right to have an attorney present during questioning by a law enforcement representative, including an informant secretly working for law enforcement. This is sometimes called the "Massiah" rule after a Supreme Court case.

Prosecutors must also turn over evidence from, and about, jailhouse informants used in a defendant's criminal case because it could help the defendant question the informant's credibility. Failing to do so violates the 14th Amendment and related court decisions, which require prosecutors to share with defendants any evidence they have that could help them prove their innocence. This is sometimes known as the "Brady" rule after another Supreme Court case.

The origins of the snitch scandal

In 2014, Sanders was defending Dekraai and another man, Daniel Wozniak, who was later convicted of double murder, when he began to uncover evidence of a secret informant program in O.C. jails.

The mass murder case against Dekraai should've been a slam dunk — he confessed to the crime soon after the shooting. But deputies decided to put him in a jail cell with a confidential informant, motivated by the possibility that Dekraai might try to plead insanity, according to a 2020 audit of the misconduct commissioned by Spitzer.

Then, prosecutors hid evidence from Dekraai's defense team about the informant and his work on behalf of law enforcement.

Dekraai pleaded guilty in 2014, but his sentencing was delayed for three years while the court investigated police and prosecutor misconduct in the case. Eventually, courts removed the entire Orange County District Attorney's Office (OCDA) from Dekraai's case and ruled that he couldn't be sentenced to death because of the misconduct.

After that ruling, Paul Wilson, whose wife Christy was among those killed by Dekraai, told LAist: “They’ve taken the largest mass murder in Orange County history and they have completely and utterly screwed that case up.”

News of misconduct spreads

As people in custody and their lawyers found out about the debacle, which was extensively covered by local and national media, some discovered their own cases involved the same methods and actors as the ones behind the misconduct in Dekraai’s case.

"If you're sitting in state prison, you're going to probably know about it, you're going to hear about it," Sanders said about early news of the snitch scandal. "People would write in. People would say, 'Hey, I want to have my case addressed.' All sorts of things like that."

Some realized that police officers or sheriff's deputies who testified in their cases were associated with misconduct in the Dekraai case, giving them grounds to question those officers' testimony.

Others came to suspect there might be evidence about informants used in their case that hadn't been turned over to their defense team.

Ramon Alvarez was among those who successfully challenged his conviction. He had been found guilty in 2012 of shooting a man in the head and then storing the body in a Santa Ana yard in a kiddie pool full of ice.

His murder conviction was dismissed last year after he presented evidence that a known jailhouse informant had lied in his case in exchange for an $11,000 check from the Santa Ana Police Department. An assistant district attorney had told the jury in Alvarez's trial that the informant had not been offered anything for his testimony.

A report last year from the Justice Department confirmed that failing to disclose the police department’s payment violated Alvarez's constitutional rights. Federal investigators also pointed to the prosecutor's motive. "The prosecutor conceded during our interview that he could not have successfully prosecuted Alvarez without [the informant]’s testimony," the DOJ investigators wrote, adding that "the only reason for the jury to believe [the informant], who 'had a rap sheet a mile long,' was that he was getting nothing for his testimony."

Judge Ebrahim Baytieh, who has been accused of misconduct while a prosecutor in the O.C. District Attorney's office, now runs Orange County's CARE Court, a court-mandated mental health treatment program.

(

Lauren Justice

/

for CalMatters

)

Snitch Scandal 2.0?

In some of the cases revisited because of alleged misconduct, O.C. sheriff's deputies refused to testify about their use of informants in order to protect themselves from self-incrimination. In other words, they pleaded the Fifth Amendment.

That's what led a judge to throw out a murder conviction against Paul Smith in 2021. Smith was convicted in 2010 for allegedly stabbing his childhood friend Robert Haugen to death in 1988 and setting his body on fire in Haugen's Sunset Beach apartment.

But a judge ordered a new trial after deputies refused to testify. Spitzer, O.C.’s district attorney, said at the time that top prosecutor Ebrahim Baytieh, who's now an O.C. Superior Court judge, failed to turn over evidence of the informant use to the defense.

Spitzer fired Baytieh in February 2022, but the former prosecutor went on to win election to the O.C. Superior Court a few months later, with endorsements from dozens of current and former judges and law enforcement leaders.

In a lengthy court document filed last month in Smith's case, Sanders now alleges that Baytieh was at the center of an "enormous web of deception" designed to cover up misconduct that helped prosecutors win cases while cheating defendants out of their right to a fair trial.

[Read our story: OC Snitch Case: Former Top Prosecutor, Now Judge, Accused Of Criminal Cover-Up By Public Defender]

"As detailed for the first time in this motion, Baytieh energetically worked to prevent both the informant program from being uncovered and evidence about specific informants being disclosed because he knew that these disclosures would make it more difficult to win particular cases," Sanders wrote.

Sanders also alleges that Baytieh — who had been lauded for his ethics at the district attorney's office and put in charge of determining which evidence prosecutors needed to disclose — was in fact among the worst offenders in the jailhouse snitch scandal.

A spokesperson for Orange County Superior Court has said the court and judicial officers are prohibited by ethical rules from discussing active cases. The district attorney's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the allegations.

In the motion, Sanders cites an additional 98 cases — 45 of them involving murder charges — where he said defense attorneys should have been handed evidence that could help their clients' cases.

Sanders argues that the misconduct is so egregious that the murder charges against Smith should be dropped.

How common is this kind of misconduct?

Possley, from the National Registry of Exonerations, said we don't really know how common it is for law enforcement officials and prosecutors to withhold evidence because it's a "hidden crime."

"What we know is that sometimes this stuff comes to light decades later," he said.

The National Registry of Exonerations found in a 2020 report that official misconduct, usually by police officers or prosecutors, contributed to false convictions in 54% of cases where the defendant was later cleared of charges. Black exonerees were more likely than white exonerees to have faced misconduct in their cases, especially when charged with murder or drug crimes.

The report found that hiding evidence that could have helped a defendant prove their innocence was the most common type of misconduct, having been involved in 44% of the cases they examined.

The researchers didn't specifically look at how often the use of jailhouse informants was tied to the misconduct. But a review of the registry's database turns up 164 out of 3,385 cases in which official misconduct and jailhouse informants played a role in a person's exoneration.

The registry, which has been collecting data since 1989, defines exoneration as being completely cleared of charges based on new evidence of innocence.

Not all snitch scandals have such a far reach

Orange County is certainly not the first place to get caught up in scandals over jailhouse informants. The problem goes way back and wide — across the country and right next door in Los Angeles.

L.A.'s own jailhouse informant scandal, which came to light in the late 1980s, blew up when a prolific informant named Leslie White showed authorities how he could fake a murder confession from a defendant in jail by impersonating officials to get information about a case. He would then finagle placement in the same room as the target so he could make a confession look plausible.

"Perjury has been committed," White wrote from jail in a 1988 Los Angeles Times op-ed. "That is a fact, not a possibility."

At the time, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office said it planned to review every case in the preceding decade in which a jailhouse snitch testified to getting a confession.

A few years later, a grand jury investigating the scandal reported there were between 150 and 250 criminal cases in which jailhouse informants had testified over the previous decade. But it's unclear how many of those cases were reopened because of the damning revelations about informants in L.A. jails.

The National Registry of Exonerations includes nine people in L.A. County whose ultimate finding of innocence was at least partially due to official misconduct and the use of a jailhouse informant.

But unlike Sanders' list of cases affected by misconduct in the O.C. snitch scandal, LAist could find no record of the total number of cases impacted by L.A.'s snitch scandal, including cases in which sentences were reduced or a new trial was ordered.

Why the apparent difference? Possley said a big reason is Sanders. In L.A., there was no similarly determined defense attorney working to identify and revisit cases that may have been tainted.

"Sanders has had to swim upstream the whole goddamn time," Possley said.

He said there has historically been resistance among criminal justice officials to make the kinds of misconduct connections that Sanders has among disparate cases. "Because they know that there's a problem and that starting to tug on that string might unravel a pretty big piece of fabric," he said.

Sanders himself credits the O.C. public defender's office for giving him and other colleagues the time and resources to investigate the extent, and effects, of misconduct.

"Our office has encouraged and allowed me and others to do this work now for nearly a decade," Sanders said. "We're going into the second decade here. … And even with that, it's going to be difficult for all of the cases to get addressed in the way they should."

Natapoff, the Harvard scholar who's an expert in snitching, said the O.C. scandal is "both a cautionary tale of what happens when we leave the informant market unregulated and also a sign to us that without public defender offices and attorneys willing to spend the resources to uncover these kinds of scandals, we are likely never to learn about them."

A new conversation about criminal justice

Natapoff says informants are just one aspect of a system that has turned criminal justice into a marketplace.

"The people who run the jails understand that this market is robust, that information can be obtained — fabricated or not, as it were — and prosecutors understand that there is a machinery for producing information in the jails, which comes with its own baggage," she said.

Incarcerated people — and most anyone who's spent time in custody — also understand "that if they can produce information about a cellmate or someone else in the jail, that a reward will be forthcoming," Natapoff added.

One of the reasons the public doesn't hear more about the misuse of jailhouse informants, she said, is because the vast majority of criminal cases — about nine in 10 — end in plea deals, not trials.

"In effect, the informant market is the sort of under-the-table, black market version of our general plea bargaining system, which says we negotiate all cases, we negotiate all guilt," Natapoff said. "We almost never litigate the facts anymore."

In a system that runs on deals, she said, “law enforcement is incentivized, even systemically encouraged, to engage in all kinds of deal-making with suspects and defendants who might be useful to them."

But as informant scandals have emerged over the years, an increasing number of jurisdictions have enacted reforms, which Natapoff chronicles on her website.

Plus, she said, the conversation around criminal justice has changed over the years.

"Twenty years ago, we did not have the so-called bipartisan consensus that mass incarceration is a terrible idea. Twenty years ago, we were not having a conversation about Black Lives Matter or debtors' prison or all the conversations that we now have about the unfairnesses and the dysfunctions of our criminal system," Natapoff said.

Innocence projects have increasingly sprung up to help people who were wrongly convicted challenge their fate. On the institutional side, many district attorneys' offices, including Orange County, have opened "conviction integrity units" to investigate claims of innocence.

But because of the decentralized nature of criminal justice in the U.S., reforms tend to be piecemeal, Natapoff said, and uncovering misconduct is often up to outsiders.

"The criminal system itself does not divulge these facts," Natapoff said, referring to the big informant scandals of recent decades. "It was advocates, it was the innocence movement, it was journalism starting to chip away at the culture of secrecy."

Jury selection began Monday for the trial of the man accused of igniting a fire that led to the deadly and destructive Palisades Fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of structures.

Jonathan Rinderknecht is charged with one count of destruction of property by means of fire, one count of arson affecting property used in interstate commerce and one count of setting timber afire. He could face up to 45 years in federal prison.

How we got here

Prosecutors allege Rinderknecht set brush alight near a popular hiking trail in the Santa Monica Mountains on New Year’s Day, starting the Lachman Fire. Firefighters initially thought they put out the fire, but it remained smouldering underground for several days. High winds then brought the embers to the surface, sparking the Palisades Fire, which burned more than 23,000 acres.

What prosecutors say

In a court filing in April, prosecutors allege Rinderknecht displayed “extreme anger, indignation, and frustration” because he had to spend New Year's Eve alone. After driving around for Uber, Rinderknecht hiked up a popular trail and set chaparral alight in a clearing, according to prosecutors.

“He then started calling 911 multiple times, hiked down the hill, and fled the area in his car before firefighters arrived. Defendant returned to the area after he saw fire trucks arriving and then took videos of the firefighting efforts,” prosecutors wrote.

The filing also states that Rinderknecht threatened to burn down his sister’s home.

Prosecutors are expected to argue that Rinderknecht started the smaller blaze knowing it could turn into a bigger inferno.

U.S. District Court Judge Anne Hwang has previously expressed the government’s position could confuse jurors.

What the defense says

Defense attorney Steve Haney previously told reporters that prosecutors were trying to blame Rinderknecht for a fire that started days before the Palisades Fire.

"Well what about what happened between Jan. 1 and Jan. 7?" he asked. "Jonathan wasn't out there with a fire hose putting that fire out at the Lachman location, the Fire Department was. So why are they blaming him for whatever the Fire Department didn't do?"

It's here, folks: The FIFA World Cup kicks off this week, and the U.S. men's national soccer team is ready for its Friday opener in Los Angeles, the players say.

A pair of international friendlies over the past two weekends has given the Americans and their fans plenty of reasons to dream big. Star forward Christian Pulisic broke his monthslong goal drought against Senegal, and defender Antonee Robinson wowed with his offensive playmaking. And above all, the U.S. showed they are unwilling to be intimidated by quality opponents with their own serious aspirations for the World Cup.

"We're really starting to hit our stride," said midfielder Tyler Adams after Saturday's game against Germany.

Gone are the anxieties about scoring chances

In the 2022 World Cup, the Americans only managed to score three goals in their four games. That was enough for a win and two draws in the group stage, but their road ended in the Round of 16 when the Netherlands easily outscored them 3-1.

Now, any anxiety over the U.S. scoring capability feels like a distant memory. The team is flush with options on the attack, and not only Pulisic, who has scored 33 goals for the U.S. in his career. Forwards Folarin Balogun, who found the net against Senegal, and Ricardo Pepi, who was instrumental in two goals against Senegal, have looked excellent these past two weeks.

In other words, the team is consistently creating chances and converting enough to compete. "It's definitely encouraging," said Pulisic Saturday. "We have a lot of talent on the team, a lot of guys that can create and be dangerous to score goals."

But defense is still a liability…

Both Germany and Senegal picked up easy goals on defensive lapses. Great World Cup teams, like the kind the U.S. hopes to face in the Round of 16 and beyond, will do that.

Compared to a relatively deep bench of forwards and midfielders, the U.S. have fewer full-package defenders. On one hand, there's Tim Ream, whose soccer IQ and positioning are excellent, but who is 38 and can no longer win a footrace. Next to him is the promising 21-year-old Alex Freeman, the son of a former NFL wide receiver whose athleticism is off the charts but feel for the game is still a work in progress. Backups Miles Robinson, Mark McKenzie and Auston Trusty have their moments but are prone to mistakes.

"There's been a lot of combinations worked on in training and, there were moments when we can be better connected as a group on the defensive side," Ream said after the game.

… so getting defender Chris Richards back from injury will be key

The U.S. badly needs the return of defender Chris Richards, who hurt his ankle in a game with his club Crystal Palace in May. He sat out both friendlies. His status for Friday's game against Paraguay is still in limbo.

"If this was the final of the World Cup, maybe he can play. But the advice of the medical [team] is not to play," coach Mauricio Pochettino said the day before the Germany game. He added that they would assess Richards' health in the days that followed.

"He's an important piece of the group [with] his energy, his leadership on and off the field. So obviously we're just all behind him and can't wait to have him back," midfielder Weston McKennie said Friday.

These guys aren't afraid of adversity

A meeker U.S. team might have folded when Germany scored in the second minute of Saturday's game. But this version of the USMNT righted the ship within minutes and began pressing Germany hard, producing chance after chance before finally connecting on Robinson's extraordinary goal before the halftime break.

After the game, Pochettino told reporters he came to see Germany's early goal as "lucky" for his squad. "[It was] an amazing challenge for us to see how we react, how is your character, how we show togetherness, how we start to play under pressure," he said.

And the toughness showed up in the physicality, too. Players didn't back down from challenges. When Germany fouled hard, an American delivered a hard foul right back. The message, Adams said, was "have each other's backs."

"We can tune up passing, final plays, finishing, all those kinds of things. But to see that mentality, I think from everyone, and it's not just the guys that started, everyone that came off the bench as well — that's what you need," he said.
Copyright 2026 NPR

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Drive down Manchester Boulevard in Inglewood, and you’re likely to see WOW Media digital billboards — from slender, curved signs planted in medians to massive LED screens that stretch across streets — that some residents have called eyesores.

What’s less visible is that those billboards are at the center of a corporate power struggle that may be headed to the ballot this November.

On one side: WOW Media, which has a financial partnership with the City of Inglewood that could be worth tens of millions of dollars as an aggressive expansion of its billboard network comes online. The city has not publicly endorsed or opposed the ballot proposals backed by WOW, and Mayor James Butts declined to comment on those initiatives.

On the other: the operators of SoFi Stadium, the Intuit Dome and the Kia Forum — who want the billboard network gone and have their own advertising interests in the stadium district.

Both the billboard company and stadium operators have turned to the same weapon: Petitions to put initiatives on voters’ ballots.

WOW is bankrolling proposals to cap stadium parking fees and raise taxes on event tickets. The stadium operators are pushing a measure to gut the city’s billboard program and the deal with WOW. Each side frames its campaigns as protecting Inglewood residents.

But none of these measures appear to be financed by community members. The money needed to persuade voters is coming from business interests who have major stakes in the upcoming World Cup, Super Bowl and Olympics.

This fight goes back to lawsuits between the city and stadium-linked businesses, including those tied to Stan Kroenke’s SoFi Stadium as well as Steve Ballmer’s Intuit Dome and Kia Forum. Last year, those businesses sued after the Inglewood City Council approved an exclusive contract with WOW Media to build and operate more than 100 digital billboards along some of the city’s busiest streets.

Shortly after that, Mayor James Butts wrote directly to Stan Kroenke seeking to ease tensions with Hollywood Park, where SoFi Stadium is located, and questioned whether a prior development agreement was still valid.

Now, as the city gears up for these major sporting events, the dispute has expanded from a fight over advertising control into a broader debate over public space and city revenue.

WOW Media is the main funder of the Inglewood Residents for Stadium Accountability committee. It is backing two proposals: a cap on stadium parking rates and a tax on event tickets.

Stadium-linked businesses are backing a proposal that would roll back or eliminate the city’s billboard program and end its exclusive agreement with WOW.

Those same stadium-linked businesses backing the billboard blight initiative are also behind some of the city’s most visible and controversial digital advertising displays on stadium properties, which have changed Inglewood’s streetscape in recent years.

A person walks past a digital billboard on Prairie Ave. in Inglewood on Saturday, April 18, in Los Angeles, Calif.

(

Dania Maxwell

/

The LA Local

)

Outside these campaigns, WOW already operates large digital billboards across the city, including its “Spectaculars” and twisting digital kiosks along major corridors.

The company promotes them as advertising space for audiences drawn to major sporting events. It has built its brand around aggressive marketing ahead of the city’s upcoming global sports calendar.

In a February Instagram post, WOW wrote: “You need Digital Spectaculars that match the energy. You need massive real estate. You need WOW,” alongside a video clip of a soccer ball bouncing through Inglewood streets.

Taken together, campaign filings, interviews and reporting by The LA Local suggest both sides are fighting not only over policy measures, but over control of high-value advertising space in Inglewood.

When asked why WOW was backing initiatives apparently unrelated to its billboard network, CEO Scott Krantz said the company is pushing for stadium operators to contribute more to the city.

“Our commitment has always been to invest in Inglewood, and that commitment goes far beyond our network,” Krantz wrote, adding that WOW wants Inglewood to remain a strong and financially stable “City of Champions.”

Inside the stadium admissions tax initiative

At the center of one of the competing measures is a proposal to change how Inglewood taxes stadium tickets.

Inglewood has long relied on ticket taxes for revenue. But when the Staples Center opened in 1999 and the Lakers and Kings left the Forum, collections fell from about $700,000 to $225,000. By 2009-10, they were down to $20,000.

That changed with the stadium boom, including SoFi Stadium and the Intuit Dome.

A digital billboard is seen on Manchester Avenue at Spruce Avenue in Inglewood on Saturday, April 18, 2026, in Los Angeles, Calif.

(

Dania Maxwell

/

For The LA Local

)

By 2022–23, the city collected $23 million in admissions tax revenue, boosted by major events including the NCAA football national championship game and WrestleMania. Admissions taxes from all ticketed events accounted for nearly 9% of the city’s general fund, according to budget documents.

A cap limits how much the city can collect. Under current rules, each venue pays up to $15 million annually.

The proposed Inglewood Fair Share Admissions Tax Tier Reform and Cap Removal Initiative, funded by WOW media, would eliminate those caps and restructure how venues are taxed.

If approved, it would set a 2.5% ticket charge for mid-sized venues, while larger venues like SoFi Stadium would continue paying 10% per ticket, but without the $15 million cap.

What the parking fee initiative would mean on game days

Above Mel Garcia’s neighborhood, the Intuit Dome looms over the rooftops like an alien spacecraft. On game days, streets are crowded with vehicles.

“The parking is wild, a lot more traffic,” Garcia said. Sometimes he sees residents renting out driveway spots, other times he sees visitors trying to sneak into street parking spaces.

Another proposal, the Parking Price Transparency and Anti-Price-Gouging Initiative, would cap parking near stadiums at $20 per vehicle. It is also funded by WOW Media.

The initiative claims the cap would bring more stability to game days and push drivers toward commercial lots instead of residential streets.

Tens of thousands of vehicles can enter the city during NFL games and concerts, and the city issues an average of 41 parking tickets per major event, according to city documents.

Most city parking fines range between $50 and $70, about the same as the cheapest listed parking around the stadium for some Rams games.

Stadium parking prices can climb into the hundreds of dollars, as they have for the FIFA World Cup this summer.

The city has continued to adjust. On May 12, the City Council approved an ordinance allowing churches and some businesses with large lots to sell parking spots during events.

A signature battle to the ballot

Signature gathering — and signature removal — have also become part of the broader fight.

WOW-backed canvassers appear to have been collecting signatures for initiatives that would cap stadium parking rates and raise taxes on event tickets while also asking voters to withdraw support from the rival campaign seeking to curb WOW’s billboard network.

The LA Local obtained photos of a petition asking voters to remove their names from the Billboard Blight Elimination and Neighborhood Preservation Initiative.

The LA Local obtained photos of a petition asking voters to remove their names.

(

Courtesy of the Blight Elimination and Neighborhood Preservation Initiative

)

The Inglewood City Clerk confirmed the petition had been filed but did not respond to questions about when it was submitted, who filed it or how many signatures it sought to remove from the rival campaign.

When asked about the effort, Krantz, the WOW CEO, did not directly confirm involvement but also did not deny it. Instead, he argued the city’s stadium businesses have created an “uneven playing field” that benefits themselves at the expense of others.

“The initiatives we support are designed to protect Inglewood from another attempt by stadium owners to take more from residents, small businesses and the city services that support critical infrastructure,” Krantz wrote.

John Shallman, a spokesperson for the billboard blight campaign who used to work with the LA Clippers, said WOW used its stadium-related petitions to target the roughly 13,000 signatures his group had collected.

“While WOW was publicly promoting separate stadium-related initiatives, it was also funding and organizing efforts designed to reduce support for ours by asking voters who had already signed to withdraw their names,” Shallman told The LA Local.

Shallman said canvassers were carrying multiple clipboards and asking some voters who had already signed the billboard initiative to remove their support. The LA Local could not independently verify those claims beyond confirming the petition had been filed with the city.

Krantz previously wrote to The LA Local that the billboard blight initiative was a “private interest power grab” by stadium owners designed to funnel advertising dollars to the billboards on stadium property.

“Their own massive signs — including future signs — are conveniently exempt from this initiative,” Krantz wrote. “The stadiums share none of their advertising revenue with Inglewood residents.”

The WOW-funded campaign directly discloses that they oppose the billboard blight ballot initiative in financial filings with the California Secretary of State. The stadium businesses did not similarly list their opposition to the parking and event tax initiatives.

The lawsuits remain unresolved, and the initiatives are being processed by the city to see if they’ve met the standards for inclusion on the fall ballot.

The Ballmer Group is a funder of The LA Local, but their support doesn’t influence our coverage. To learn more about our funders and commitment to editorial independence, click here.