by TRC_Admin | Jun 1, 2019 | City Signs, Codes, Legal, Snipe Signs
Photo: Will Warasila, New Yorker
“The small city of Bel-Nor, Missouri is at least temporarily blocked from enforcing a local law that restricts homeowners from displaying more than one sign at a time on their property, under a federal appeals court ruling issued on Monday.
Lawrence Willson, who owns and lives in a single-family home in Bel-Nor, sued the city in January 2018, alleging the ordinance trammeled his free speech rights and other constitutional protections. The city cited him because he had three signs in his yard.
One said ‘Black Lives Matter,’ another ‘Clinton Kaine’ and the third ‘Jason Kander U.S. Senate.’ Each of the signs is about 18 by 24 inches, according to Tony Rothert, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, who is representing Willson.
“In our view, a one-sign restriction is too restrictive of speech,’ Rothert said by phone on Monday.
He went on to describe yard signs as an important form of speech with a ‘communicative value that is unmatched’ in other mediums.
‘It’s different than buying a billboard, or taking out an ad in the paper, or even writing a letter to the editor, to put what you believe in front of your home,’ Rothert said.
The city has argued that its ordinance is ‘content-neutral’ and regulates all sorts of signs in the same way, and is therefore not subject to heightened legal scrutiny. It has cited traffic safety, especially preventing distractions for drivers, as a main consideration with the sign restrictions…
A federal district court last March denied Willson’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which would have prevented Bel-Nor from enforcing the law, at least while the court case played out.
But a three-judge panel for the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has now reversed that decision.
In an 11-page ruling, the court said Willson is likely to succeed on the merits of his free speech challenge under the First Amendment against the local government ordinance and sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
A Bel-Nor police officer in June 2017 left Willson a written warning that by displaying his three signs he was violating part of the city code, according to the complaint Willson filed in federal district court.
The code, at that time, limited residential property to one ‘political advertising’ sign and said ‘political signs’ had to be removed within 15 days after an election.”
— Bill Lucia, Route Fifty
Read entire article in Route Fifty. NOTE: Due to an unusual ad strategy this article’s complete and detailed content can be easy to miss. There is a small link to go past the full width ad and continue reading.
Read article in New Yorker about art installation in photo above.
by TRC_Admin | Jun 1, 2019 | City Signs, Codes, Snipe Signs
Photo: Dave DeJohn, Spectrum News
“The street advertisements known as snipe signs can be found littering many major roadways, and officials in Tavares are moving to crack down.
The city has won several beautification awards, and officials don’t want the signs ruining that.
Tavares spokesman Mark O’Keefe said the city’s Code Enforcement officers remove the signs, only to see them go right back up again. At a meeting recently, City Administrator John Drury and City Council members discussed the issue with police officials and decided to step up enforcement by citing chronic offenders.
‘Snipe signs scattered throughout your whole community are not very attractive, and so we’re looking at bringing the enforcement up to the next level to curtail the number of snipe signs that are rampant throughout Tavares,’ Drury said then.
So now they are having police issue $100 fines to repeat offenders.
‘The citizens of Tavares and the public administration have noticed an ever increasing litter problem created by these items called snipe signs,’ O’Keefe said.
Antwan Brown, who owns a lawn care business, has seen his share of roadside debris, including plenty of snipe signs.
‘Sometimes the paper comes off of them, and then you’re stuck with the metal piece in the ground or (they) wind up laying down on the ground. Then when you’re not paying attention, trying to get the job done real fast, the metal part ends up shooting out into traffic and now you got a problem,’ Brown said…”
— Dave DeJohn, Spectrum News
Read entire article
by TRC_Admin | Jun 1, 2019 | City Signs, Codes, Feather Flags, Snipe Signs
Photo: Gregg Pachkowski, Pensacola News Journal
“Santa Rosa County has been cracking down on unlawful snipe and feather signs in front of businesses.
Santa Rosa County Commissioners were at a near deadlock Monday about whether to pull back enforcement of the county’s feather sign ordinance, which has angered small business owners as the revamped code enforcement department has implemented a crackdown in recent weeks…
The problem is that although the ordinance regarding feather signs has been in the county books for decades, it hasn’t actually been enforced until last month. Multiple small business owners who have been using feather signs for years told commissioners they were surprised to learn they were prohibited.
Eric Vines, who owns a small business called Cellular Nerd, said he was visited by code enforcement and asked to remove his signs. He called the ordinance ‘misleading’ and said the rules ‘don’t make any sense.’
District 2 Commissioner Bob Cole said it wasn’t the board’s intent to hurt small businesses when it opted to strengthen the code enforcement department in January, and added that ‘it’s my fault for perhaps not reading the code long and hard enough.’
‘Derelict vessels, derelict automobiles, derelict housing, tattered signs, and the snipe signs that are on public property … in the public right of way, were my concerns,’ Cole said. “It certainly wasn’t to involve businesses and hurt businesses…”
But County Attorney Roy Andrews and County Administrator Dan Schebler warned against ceasing to enforce all sign ordinances, saying it could open up a “Pandora’s box” and lead to rampant sign usage throughout the county.
‘To me, this is about what do we want Santa Rosa County to look like?’ Schebler said. ”
— Annie Blanks, Pensacola News Journal
Read entire articlehttps://www.pnj.com/story/news/2019/05/06/santa-rosa-county-code-enforcement-sign-crackdown-upsets-businesses/1118960001/
by TRC_Admin | Apr 1, 2019 | Billboards, City Signs, Codes, Legal
Photo: Google Maps, Art: The Real Deal
“The owner of a commercial building in the Miami Design District is suing the city for approving a billboard ban that allegedly sunk the value of the property by nearly $5 million.
Karenza Apartments LLP, which owns the building at 100 Northeast 38th Street, alleges it also lost a lucrative contract with a billboard advertiser after city commissioners passed the measure that prohibits billboards north of I-95, at the behest of Miami Design District developer Craig Robins of Dacra…
According to the complaint, the city commission passed the ban on second reading on July 27, 2017, about a year after it was introduced by Commissioner Keon Hardemon at Robins’ request. At the time, Karenza had an agreement with Becker Boards Miami to place a large mural above its one-story property, which is currently occupied by the offices of architecture firm Shulman + Associates. Karenza’s building was one of three properties in the Design District with billboard permits, the lawsuit states.
Karenza claims the city commission ignored a planning and zoning appeals board recommendation that its building be grandfathered in because the proposed measure included an exemption for one of the other neighboring billboard properties, at 3704 Northeast Second Avenue…
On Aug. 26, 2017, when the ban took effect, Becker Boards Miami relocated its mural to a property south of I-195 since Karenza’s property was no longer allowed to have billboards. Karenza is suing the city for $4.8 million in damages, which represents the dollar amount of the property’s diminished value, the suit states…”
— Francisco Alvarado, Research Haru Coryne, The Real Deal South Florida Real Estate News
Read entire article
by TRC_Admin | Feb 27, 2019 | City Signs
Photo: City of St. Petersburg
“Deputy Mayor Kanika Tomalin and the City Council get into a testy discussion over the number and type of signs…the quarrel is about the signs that will sprout throughout the 26-acre Pier District…
For some council members, it was about what they viewed as a possible proliferation of signs at the new Pier. And to their horror, that some might be digital…
The issue was raised by Council member Ed Montanari, who had enlarged diagrams attached to the agenda item seeking council approval for funds to design the foundations and installation for wayfinding signs at the Pier.
‘I was shocked by the number of signs that are going to be out there. I counted 91. … When I looked at the descriptions, there are four signs out there that look like the digital billboards that we discussed last October and they are called directory kiosks.’ he said. ‘I want to get more information of what can be displayed on these kiosks.’
‘When I see the number of signs out there, the first thing that came to mind to me was the Las Vegas strip’ he said, later explaining that he came up with his count by totalling dots on the diagrams he had enlarged…
‘If we need 91 signs on the Pier in order for people to find their way around, we have too much stuff. … This is clutter,’ she said. ‘I too was troubled by the addition of digital kiosks. … I don’t see where they are really necessary…’
[The matter was deferred.]”
— Waveney Ann Moore, Tampa Bay Times
Read entire article
by TRC_Admin | Jan 3, 2019 | City Signs, Codes
Photo: Mike Wright, Citrus County Chronicle
“County officials say a wall that separates the Stonegate development from Crystal Oaks [in Lacanto] is not permitted.
County Commissioner Jimmie T. Smith went to bat for a Lecanto developer during Tuesday’s board meeting but found no help from other commissioners after they learned the company has a pending code case.
Smith questioned whether the county’s sign ordinance violates free speech after a contractor for the Stonegate at Westchase housing development complained to him about the county removing his ‘feather’ for-sale flags.
Smith said the contractor told him he had no place to advertise the development, which is separate but adjacent to the Crystal Oaks community…
Commissioners weren’t convinced.
‘We’re talking about a developer who bought a section of land in Crystal Oaks,’ Commissioner Scott Carnahan said. ‘He can learn how to advertise without flying signs out front…’
I’m not willing to change our policy,’ Carnahan said. ‘When it comes to he doesn’t know how to advertise, I don’t buy that one.'”
— Mike Wright, Citrus County Chronicle
Read entire article
