An ongoing battle over a billboard between a Point Loma motel owner and a local nonprofit just got nastier.
The Point Loma Association (PLA) May 27 filed a lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court against father-son Horace (Holly) and Alan Murdock, owners of the Dolphin Motel at 2912 Garrison St. The suit alleges breach of contract over a purported 2013 agreement between the parties.
At issue is a billboard acquired by Dolphin Motel on an adjacent parcel, formerly the Small Hotel now the Pearl Hotel at 1410 Rosecrans St.
In 2013, the Murdocks requested the Point Loma Association’s help to appeal to the city to waive the handicapped parking requirements to turn their hotel’s adjacent office space into a four-room hotel.
The PLA contends the Murdocks agreed to remove the billboard on their property in exchange for the PLA’s support in backing their expansion. The nonprofit claims the Murdocks later reneged on that pledge.
Robert Tripp Jackson, immediate past president of the PLA, said the association was initially approached by the Murdocks in February 2013 in a letter offering the “permanent removal of the billboard” on their property at 1453-55 Rosecrans in exchange for the PLA’s support of their application for a parking variation with the city.
On May 8, 2013, the PLA sent off a letter to the city’s development services department giving their full support to the Murdocks’ expansion project under the condition that the billboard be removed.
More recently, a new development with the Dolphin Motel has brought the issue of the billboard to a head.
“We found out the (Dolphin) motel was on the market and they were in negotiations on closing a deal with a buyer,” said Jackson. “If that happened, conveyance to a different owner, our (billboard) agreement would be void unless we put something on the record.”
Years ago, the Village of Point Loma was blighted by a dozen or more billboards, the removal of which became a PLA priority. Only two of those billboards remain, including the one left on the Murdock’s property at Garrison and Rosecrans streets.
The Murdocks could not be reached for comment for this story. Previously contacted by the Peninsula Beacon, Alan Murdock, speaking on his father’s behalf, said: “Other than to agree that there are two sides to every story, until we work through and resolve some legal issues in regard to this situation, it would be premature and inappropriate to comment any further.”
Further complicating the matter is that the billboard’s owner, Clear Channel, has demanded compensation for it should it ever be removed. Clear Channel cited a state law mandating that “any governmental entity that requires the removal of a lawfully erected billboard as a condition of a permit be required to compensate the billboard company for the removal.”
City Attorney Jan Goldsmith has since said, with regard to the billboard, that the city is indemnified.
“The removal of the billboard is the sole reason plaintiff (PLA) endorsed and supported defendant’s (Murdock’s) application for a permit,” states an excerpt from the lawsuit. “Defendants breached the agreement by failing to remove the billboard and they continue to refuse after repeated requests.”
Plaintiff is harmed by defendants’ failure to remove the billboard … by fewer parking spaces which plaintiff would not have supported had it been known defendants never intended to remove the billboard.”