It's discussed in the article.

That’s interesting, because I read the article and it seems like a straightforward rant against billboards. The discussion here - except for your comment - is about either billboards or advertising in general.

If the article is really a metaphor for something else (racist town ordinances? zoning in general? something else?) I think a lot of us have missed it. Perhaps you could enlighten us.

I don't think it's a metaphor, I just think it observes a municipality demanding a business tear down and rebuild a facade for aesthetic reasons and uses that as a justification for banning billboards. Ban all the billboards you want, but municipalities should not be enforcing those aesthetic rules.