by TRC_Admin | May 2, 2022 | Codes, Legal
Photo: Mack Male, in Austin Monitor through a Creative Commons license
City wins digital billboard battle at Supreme Court in City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising
“On a vote of 6-3, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Thursday that the city of Austin’s regulations prohibiting digital billboards and other off-premises digital signs are content-neutral and therefore do not violate the First Amendment.
Reagan National Advertising and Lamar Advertising Company sued the city in a Travis County District Court after attempting to get permission to make some of its billboards digital in 2017. In 2019, Judge Robert Pitman of the U.S. District Court in Austin sided with the city, saying that the on-/off-premises distinction did not depend on the content of the sign. The billboard companies appealed to the 5th Circuit, which reversed Pitman’s ruling. The city then appealed to the Supreme Court.
But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling that the distinction between on-premises signs and off-premises signs violated the First Amendment because the building official had to look at the sign in order to determine whether it was on- or off-premises. The opinion was based on the appeals court’s interpretation of a 2015 case, Reed v. Town of Gilbert.
A city spokesperson told the Austin Monitor, ‘The city of Austin is gratified by the Supreme Court’s recognition that the city’s regulation of off-premise signage is a content-neutral measure designed to serve safety and esthetic interests, consistent with thousands of similar regulations nationwide, including the Federal Highway Beautification Act.’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored Thursday’s decision. Joining her were Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring on the major issue, but dissenting in part. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, dissented.
The Supreme Court opinion stated, ‘Reed held that a regulation of speech is content based under the First Amendment if it ‘target[s] speech based on its communicative content,’ i.e., if it ‘applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.’ … The Court of Appeals’ interpretation of Reed – to mean that a regulation cannot be content neutral if its application requires reading the sign at issue – is too extreme an interpretation of this court’s precedent.’
They ordered the case to be returned to the appeals court for further consideration. That would include considering whether Austin’s regulations violate a lower standard of legal scrutiny.
Reagan spokesman Eric Wetzel told the Monitor via email, ‘This case isn’t over. The Supreme Court simply sent the matter back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, so that its panel of judges can decide if Austin’s digital-advertising restrictions survive the constitutionality test known as intermediate scrutiny. We believe those restrictions violate the First Amendment, and we look forward to making that argument before the Fifth Circuit.’
Attorney Renea Hicks, who led the city’s legal team on the case, said despite the high court’s language directing the case back to the 5th Circuit, he believes that court will take no further action because Reagan did not raise that issue on appeal. He said District Judge Robert Pitman has already held that Austin’s rules ‘satisfy intermediate scrutiny,’ and that the rules meet the test even if Reagan didn’t bring it up at the appellate court…
Scenic America and its allies filed a friend of the court brief supporting Austin before the case was heard last November.
According to Scenic America President Mark Falzone, the organization was concerned that a win by Reagan would not only jeopardize local regulations but would “chip away at the sacred legacy of the Highway Beautification Act.” The Supreme Court ruling, he said, ‘affirms a city’s right to have a say on what its streetscape looks like.’
— Jo Clifton, Austin Monitor
Read entire article
by TRC_Admin | May 2, 2022 | Environmental, Historic, Legal, Master Planning, Nature
Video and Text: myCBS4.com
“During a meeting on March 22, Alachua county commissioners passed a motion to buy a parcel of land at the intersection of U.S. 441 and Tuscawilla Road, in order to preserve Native American history.
A developer wanted to turn the 5-acre property into a Dollar General store. The land holds historical significance because it is where the second Seminole war started. Micanopy resident Aaron Weber has been fighting to preserve this land since March of 2020.
‘Everyone told us we couldn’t do it, from former county commissioners to hired experts, and something just kept us persevering and pushing along. It was like the spirit of Osceola was with us, that spirit of never surrendering and never quitting,’ Weber said.
Weber said along the process more people joined like Micanopy resident Robert Rosa.
‘It was a difficult process. Most of our people are unseen, our voices are invisible or even ourselves are invisible to the common people, the government. They just don’t realize that we are still here,’ Rosa said.
Martha Tommie, member of the Seminole tribe, feels thankful.
‘He said, we won. And I just started being humble and just respecting our elders and our ancestors and our Seminole tribe of today,’ Tommie said.
Weber said with this gesture the board of county commissioners in Alachua county showed they care.
‘The county motto is Where nature and culture meet and they exemplified that and they care about nature,’ Weber said…”
— Massiel Leyva, myCBS4.com
Read entire article
by TRC_Admin | Mar 31, 2022 | Codes, Legal
Photo: Daily News File Photo
“In two separate rulings, one on a motion and the other following a court hearing, Walton County Judge David Green declined to rule on the constitutionality of Florida’s existing customary use doctrine.
His doing so didn’t shock anyone paying attention to the 3 1/2-year legal battle being waged between the county and private beach landowners over control of the white sand of the county’s beaches. Green had succinctly stated his intentions regarding constitutional questions last November.
“This court does not have the authority to rule that the customary use doctrine adopted by the Florida Supreme Court is unconstitutional,” he wrote.
Daytona Beach vs. Tona-Rama is the landmark 1974 Florida Supreme Court case that established a standard of proof for what constitutes customary use. Customary use is a proposition by which Walton County has staked a claim that the dry sand areas of its coastline should be open to the public.
“This came as no surprise to us based on the judge’s prior rulings,” said Kent Safriet, who represented two private beach property owners at the hearing when constitutionality issues were turned aside. “Judge Green believes he is handcuffed. He believes he has to follow the Tona-Rama decision no matter how bad he feels it is.”
In ruling against Safriet’s clients in Walton County vs. Northside Holdings LLC and Lavin Family Development LLC, Green opened the door for the attorney to appeal his constitutionality case to the First District Court of Appeals. That brings it one step closer to the Florida Supreme Court, where Safriet believes “Tona-Rama” must ultimately face scrutiny…”
— Tom McLaughlin, Northwest Florida Daily News
Read entire article
by TRC_Admin | Mar 12, 2022 | Billboards, Legal
“Maryland’s highest court has upheld a tax imposed by the city of Baltimore on selling billboard advertising.
The Court of Appeals last week rejected arguments by Clear Channel that the tax violates constitutional provisions that protect freedom of speech.
The appeals court ruled 6-1 that the tax ordinance was not subject to heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment because it did not single out the press, target a small group of speakers or discriminate on the basis of the content of speech.
The Baltimore City Council passed an ordinance in 2013 imposing a tax on the selling of advertising on billboards that are not located on the premises where the goods or services being advertised are offered or sold…
Clear Channel’s challenge to the ordinance had previously been rejected in federal court, the Maryland Tax Court, the Baltimore City Circuit Court and the Court of Special Appeals.”
— Associated Press in Baltimore Sun
Read entire article
Additional background – Forbes
by TRC_Admin | Mar 12, 2022 | Codes, Derelict Structures, Environmental, Floating, Legal, Trash
Photo: FWC in Resident News
” …The City of Jacksonville is on the cusp of limiting long-term anchoring in the city’s waterways, and the highly-trafficked Ortega River in particular, to 45 days.
It didn’t take an act of Congress, just the Florida Legislature, and cooperation from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) that controls the state’s waterways, plus a local push from Jacksonville City Councilwoman Randy DeFoor and the city’s Waterways Commission.
Derelict vessels and the troubles they bring to the Ortega River and the larger St. Johns River are not new but they’ve become more common in recent years, residents say.
They damage other boats and docks in storms, serve as low rent housing and appear as eyesores against otherwise scenic vistas. But the river blight has united the many parties in cooperation of a common goal: improving traffic conditions for boaters, many of whom live and/or play on the river.
Councilwoman DeFoor put it like this for landlubbers; imagine an old car in disrepair. It may still run but it’s not your weekend piddle project. It’s just parked in front of your house. For months on end. And you can’t do anything to move it.
That will soon change for derelict boats, however.
Two new city ordinances moving toward approval should improve traffic on the river. One measure will remove a nuisance vessel from the Ortega River via a state grant program funded from a portion of boater registration fees. The cost is $30,000.
Another ordinance crafted by Councilwoman DeFoor will prohibit vessels from serving as long-term housing by capping anchoring periods in the high traffic parts of the St. Johns River, like the Ortega River, to 45 days.
‘Neighbors who live along the Ortega River brought this issue to my attention when I was running for office,’ explained Councilwoman DeFoor by email. ‘I’ve been a boater my whole life and I understand the joy and responsibilities of owning a boat. Lisa Grubba, Mike Barker, and other neighbors shared their concerns with me and because the waterways are controlled by the state we brought Representative Wyman Duggan in on the conversations…
‘We can’t let the Ortega River fill up like a junkyard,’ added Mr. Barker.”
— Joel Addington, Resident Community News
Read entire article
by TRC_Admin | Dec 29, 2021 | Billboards, Controversial, Legal, Sky, Technology
Photo: Scott Kelly/NASA via AP
“Plans to advertise from space have been around for decades, but the latest proposals have met fierce criticism.
In August, the Canadian company Geometric Energy Corporation (GEC) announced that it wanted to launch a small satellite with a billboard on it on a SpaceX rocket. The story immediately went viral, and SpaceX and GEC received a barrage of criticism.
In 2019, Russian entrepreneur Vlad Sitnikov got caught up in a similar controversy. ‘I’m an ad guy’, Sitnikov told Al Jazeera. ‘So I thought it would be cool to see a new type of media in the sky…’
‘A big wave of hate crushed me. I decided to halt the project, because people around the world started hating me.’ His start-up, StartRocket, has been in limbo ever since.
A key objection to space advertising proposals is that they will contribute to light pollution from space, a problem that is growing even without ads in orbit.
Advertising in outer space might seem like a vulgar idea, but it’s one with a long history. It’s also getting more popular because the cost of going to space is falling. But the side effects, such as light pollution and space debris, might not be worth it…
Not in my low earth orbit
With space becoming more accessible, and less costly to access, proposals for using space for advertising or entertainment purposes have been increasing. Besides the GEC and StartRocket projects, Japanese start-up ALE wants to use satellites that drop small balls to create artificial shooting stars on demand – a proposition that raised close to $50m in venture funding.
One key objection to these proposals [space advertising schemes] is that they will contribute to light pollution from space, a problem that is growing even without ads in orbit.
‘Until recently most of our work had been on ground-based light pollution’, said Jeffrey Hall, director of the Lowell Observatory, and chair of the American Astronomical Society’s Committee on Light Pollution, Radio Interference, and Space Debris. ‘The issue of light pollution from space is new territory for us, and it only started in 2019 with the launch of the SpaceX Starlink satellites,’ he told Al Jazeera.
Large, so-called ‘constellations’ of small, low-flying satellites have boomed in recent years. For example, SpaceX Starlink wants to launch tens of thousands of satellites to offer internet connections all over the world.
For astronomers, however, to observe space they need relatively dark skies. Yet bright outdoor lights on land, or satellites that emit or reflect light, like the Starlink constellation, can ruin what they do. And Hall fears space billboards might make the problem worse.
‘Satellites leave very bright streaks in images’, he said. ‘The streaks can saturate pixels in the image, and completely ruin it…’
‘Things are moving so fast it makes sense to slow down until we understand the impacts of what we’re doing’, said Hall. Space law
It is possible that space law will prevent satellite billboards. Space is subject to the 1966 Outer Space Treaty, which sees space as a global commons.
‘There is nothing specific in the treaty about space advertising’, said professor emerita Joanne Gabrynowicz, director of the International Institute of Space Law. ‘But article 9 does require signatories to exercise ‘due regard’ of other signatories’ interests and to avoid ‘harmful interference’ to other nations’ space activities,’ she told Al Jazeera.
Satellite billboards that impede astronomers from observing space could be subject to this. On top of that, the US passed a national law during the 1990s that prohibits space advertising that might be deemed ‘obtrusive…’
Of course, SpaceX’s Starlink satellite constellation was reviewed and approved by US authorities, even though it impacts astronomy. International law also depends on how treaties are applied at the national level. The Russian state would, for example, need to decide whether it sees a Russian space advertising startup as being in line with the Outer Space Treaty. Yet there is a legal argument for blocking space advertising if it would cause too much light pollution…”
— By Tom Cassauwers, Alazeera
Read entire article
