by TRC_Admin | Mar 31, 2021 | Codes, Historic, Legal, Placemaking
“One of 1000 Friends’ foundational priorities is to help build better communities in Florida.
But SB 284 /HB 55, entitled Building Design, would take yet another tool away from local governments. This legislation seeks to remove local government authority to regulate building design in many areas, although designated local historic districts, Community Redevelopment Authority (CRA) districts, and Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) are exempt.
The bill would:
• Take away the authority of local governments to work with citizens to protect the character of certain neighborhoods and districts important to the community’s character.
• Undermine local economic development efforts that capitalize on the unique character of distinctive areas in the community.
• Remove the ability of neighborhoods and local governments to promote neighborhood reinvestment through maintaining neighborhood character.”
— 1000 Friends of Florida
Read entire article
by TRC_Admin | Mar 31, 2021 | Billboards, City Signs, Codes, Legal
Photo: Jay Janner, Austin American-Statesman
“Reagan and Lamar sued the City of Austin when the city denied approximately 85 digital billboard permits for off-premise advertising billboards arguing that the City Sign Code’s distinction between on-premise and off-premise signs violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment free speech clause.
The case was first heard by the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, and held FOR the City, ie, that the city sign code on/off-premise distinction was not content-based and was constitutional using an intermediate scrutiny standard of review.
On August 25, 2020, a three-member panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the US Western District Court and held:the Austin Sign Code’s on-premises/off-premises distinction was content-based and must therefore be subject to a strict scrutiny standard of review. The Fifth Circuit concluded that under that higher standard of review, the city’s on/off-premise distinction was content-based, thus unconstitutional.
The City of Austin has announced it will appeal to SCOTUS—filing due January 21, 2021.”
— Scenic Texas
Scenic Texas legal experts weigh in on this case
Read additional article about this battle in the Austin American-Statesman
by TRC_Admin | Feb 3, 2021 | Advertising Industry, Billboards, City Signs, Legal
Photo: Nate Smallwood, Tribune-Review
“The state Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with Lamar Advertising, finding that a large vinyl banner the company put on its Mt. Washington billboard nearly five years ago does not violate a Pittsburgh zoning ordinance.
The banner in question was placed over a previous electronic billboard overlooking the city in May 2016. It advertised Sprint, the telecommunications company, in black lettering over a gold-yellow background. The space now advertises Iron City Beer in large red letters on white.
The court, in a 4-3 opinion written by Justice David Wecht, found that the vinyl sign does not violate the zoning code cited by the city.
Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto once called the banner an ‘eyesore…’
The original billboard at issue was erected in the mid-1920s on a parcel of land owned by Lamar on Grandview Avenue. It is a concrete structure measuring 7,200 square feet and until May 2016 included a 4,500-square-foot electronic advertising sign. It has been used for local brands like Bayer, Iron City Beer and Alcoa.
Then, without approval from the city, Lamar placed the vinyl Sprint sign over the existing electronic sign.
A month later, the city issued a violation notice to Lamar alleging the sign violated two sections of the zoning code: one that bars the enlargement or addition to an already non-conforming sign (as the electronic one had previously been categorized) without approval, and another that requires the removal of an advertising sign when a business has been terminated.
In November 2016, the Pittsburgh Zoning Hearing Board heard testimony that the vinyl sign did not change the existing structure of the sign but increased the total advertising space from 4,500 square feet to 7,200. The board ruled against Lamar, finding that the alterations to the sign would change its structure. Further, it found that the changes required conditional use and site-plan approval under a previous court case involving Lamar in Monroeville…
The company appealed to Allegheny County Common Pleas Court.
The judge there reversed the zoning board, finding that it had exceeded its jurisdiction by “venturing beyond the two provisions under which [the city] had cited Lamar. The court also agreed with Lamar that it did not need a permit to change the Mount Washington billboard …”
Commonwealth Court, in August 2019, affirmed that decision, finding that because Lamar did not increase the size of the sign, there was no violation. The city appealed to the state Supreme Court, which heard the argument in September.
In the 14-page opinion issued Wednesday, the court said that the previous case involving Lamar’s attempt to transition 17 existing static billboards in Monroeville to electronic ones is not applicable.
In that instance, the court ruled against Lamar, finding that the transition to electronic billboards in Monroeville required significant structural alterations to the existing structures, ‘whereas its placement of the vinyl sign over the sign structure of the Mount Washington billboard did not require any structural alterations…'”
— Paula Reed Ward, Tribune-Review
Read entire article
by TRC_Admin | Jul 23, 2020 | Highway Beautification, Legal, Nature, Scenic Highways
“H.R. 2, the Moving Forward Act (formerly the INVEST in America Act) passes the House
On July 1, at 5:23 p.m., H.R. 2, the Moving Forward Act, passed the House by a vote of 233-188 – a moment that marked a huge victory for Scenic America and all those who care about our nation’s scenic resources.
It’s hard to overstate the importance of the Moving Forward Act when it comes to our country’s scenic beauty. This bill includes funding for more than $1.5 trillion in infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges, schools, housing, and transit systems, over the next five years.
Over the month of June, Scenic America and our supporters all worked tirelessly during the bill’s review and amendment period to ensure that scenic priorities were included – and bad billboard amendments were defeated.
Federal bills like this often run to over 2,000 pages, and the process of adding amendments to them is usually long and complex.
But the Moving Forward Act includes 3 major wins for scenic beauty:
Funding for Scenic Byways
H.R. 2 authorizes funding for the National Scenic Byways Program for the first time in 8 years, a total of $325 million over 5 years. That funding breaks down as follows: $55 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021, $60 million in FY22, $65 million in FY23, $70 million in FY24, and $75 million in FY25.
During a House Session on June 18, members of both parties shared personal stories of cherished byways and scenic areas in their home districts. Click to see a statement by Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY), Highways and Transit Subcommittee Ranking Member Rodney Davis (R-IL), and several other supporters, about the importance of the program.
The Scenic Byways Program hadn’t been accepting nominations for 10 years before the 2019 passage of the 2019 Reviving America’s Scenic Byways Act, something we only achieved as a result of activating our allies in the Scenic Byways Coalition.
Undergrounding of Utility Wires
Undergrounding also made enormous progress under this bill as well, through the $25 billion per year National Highway Performance Program.
Scenic America was able to get the following language in the bill as an acceptable use of the funds: “Undergrounding public utilities in the course of other infrastructure improvements eligible under this section to mitigate the cost of recurring damages from extreme weather events, wildfire or other natural disasters.”
In addition, a Dig Once Task Force was created to encourage undergrounding of broadband, and Scenic America advocated for the placement of “one representative from a public interest organization” to that Task Force.
NO Billboard Amendments
A last-minute dramatic turn was the end-of-day, right-before-the-weekend introduction of Amendment 316, which would have changed the current safety requirements in the Highway Beautification Act. The change would allow a billboard to be anywhere “within 200 feet of a highway” including in the highway median or 2 feet off the highway.
This proposed amendment was a direct attack by the billboard industry on the legacy of Lady Bird Johnson’s Highway Beautification Act, but Scenic America and our supporters mobilized right away and was able to defeat the amendment. The House Rules Committee rejected it definitively, which means that we beat the billboard industry in a straight-up legislative fist fight in Congress.
Next Steps
What happens now? The Senate has their own bill, S. 2302, so they won’t take up H.R. 2. They will continue to work on S. 2302 and once they pass it, these two bills will go to a conference committee.
S. 2302 has two wins for us—it includes funding for gateway communities and encourages native plants as part of the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) and it includes no pro-billboard measures.
The Senate will act on their own legislation either later on in 2020 or early in 2021. If there is a change in party in the Senate, then the process in the Senate may start over, but this is a must-pass bill, so eventually it will have to pass. We will keep you informed about further actions.
A Huge Collective Effort
These are huge victories, and we didn’t do it alone.
We would like to thank the following people for their help in adding funding for Scenic Byways into H.R. 2: Reps. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY), Rodney Davis (R-IL), and Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX), for their outstanding bipartisan leadership. Furthermore, we would specifically like to thank Reps. Garret Graves (R-LA), Dina Titus (D-NV), Randy Weber (R-TX), and Albio Sires (D-NJ) for speaking in favor of the Byways funding and for their continued support. We also want to thank Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) for speaking in support of Byways funding and highlighting the great value Scenic Byways bring to our nation.
We want to thank every Scenic America supporter who contacted their legislators, forwarded an email, or spread the word about this piece of legislation. Without your support and efforts, we would not be here today. There is more that we need to do together, but this is a terrific start.”
— Mark Falzone, Scenic America
Read entire article
by TRC_Admin | Mar 7, 2020 | City Signs, Legal
Photo: Melton
“Want to be reminded how the rich and powerful among us act as if they are above the law? Then tune in to the Super Bowl on Sunday.
Even before kickoff, you’ll likely see an aerial shot of two giant commercial advertisements on the roof of Hard Rock Stadium. And you’ll see them again and again and again before the game clock expires.
The ads are illegal — and those who should know that already do.
The signs violate Miami-Dade County’s Sign Code, adopted in July 1985. Since then, it has become the law in every municipality in the county. That includes the city of Miami Gardens, host to the NFL championship game.
The Sign Code establishes minimum regulations for all outdoor signage. The county’s various municipalities can enact regulations for any type of sign more restrictive than the Sign Code’s requirements, but no city government can enact a rule more permissive than the Sign Code.
Within each municipality, that city is responsible for the primary enforcement of the Sign Code. But the county never relinquished its enforcement rights and may exercise them at will, anywhere.
During the 34 years since the Sign Code’s adoption, most municipalities have honored it. But some cities, most notably the city of Miami, have “approved” many illegal signs — often in the face of expert testimony beforehand that such a municipal decision would violate specific Sign Code provisions.
The Sign Code defines “roof sign” as: “Any sign which is painted on, fastened to or supported by the roof or erected over the roof.” Those two mammoth signs atop Hard Rock Stadium meet that simple definition. And the Sign Code entirely outlaws all roof signs: “Roof signs are prohibited in all the [zoning] districts.”
This ain’t complicated — the signs violate the County Code.
Is my heartburn really important? Does it truly matter that any sign is painted on the top of any building, completely out of view except when you might be flying over it or a blimp films it for an international television audience?
I get that. I’m not going to convince anyone to be offended. But I am insulted, on a couple of levels.
First, the stadium roof signs are a brazen affront to our local rule of law; thus, they must be removed at once. Continued benefit derived from those prohibited signs by the rich and powerful who own and operate Hard Rock Stadium insults to all law-abiding county residents.
I’m indignant, too, because county officials know that those signs are illegal. Yet none of them can be bothered — by the outlaw signs themselves or to enforce their own County Code.
Do they not care at all? Or could it be that the county is an investor in Hard Rock Stadium, paying its owner multimillion-dollar bonuses for attracting big-time events, such as the Super Bowl? Anyone can figure that one out.
It would be easy to keep images of Hard Rock Stadium’s two illegal roof signs off the airwaves during the Super Bowl telecast. It might cost billionaire owner Stephen Ross a few bucks, but will he do it?
I’m not holding my breath.
Eston “Dusty” Melton, a former political reporter for the Miami Herald, is chairman of Gryphon Partners, a Miami-based governmental consulting and lobbying firm. Melton, who represented the outdoor advertising industry in 1980s, helped author the Miami-Dade County Sign Code. He wrote this op-ed as a private citizen and with no client interest.”
— Eston ‘Dusty’ Melton, Op-Ed in Miami Herald
Read entire article
by TRC_Admin | Mar 7, 2020 | Advertising Industry, City Signs, Codes, Controversial, Legal
Photo: Villages-News.com
“Two elected officials in The Villages have raised objections to residents one day soon purchasing the golf cart bridges that will act as billboards advertising Florida’s Friendliest Hometown.
The golf cart bridges being erected across State Road 44 and the Florida Turnpike will provided a crucial artery for golf cart transportation to and from the Village of Fenney, the massive yet-to-be-constructed Villages of Southern Oaks and other areas in the southern end of The Villages…
‘I don’t know what it’s costing to build those bridges, but it’s got to be millions,’ said CDD 8 Supervisor Larry McMurry. ‘We are going to get to buy it, and we are going to get to maintain it.’
He said it’s not too soon to begin forecasting what the cost of maintenance of the bridges will be, if for nothing more than ‘transparency’ for the residents who will soon be footing the bill…
CDD 8 Supervisor Sal Torname had a slightly different take on the golf cart bridges that remain under construction in the southern end of The Villages. He said the bridges are giant advertising billboards for The Villages.
‘Why doesn’t the Developer offset the cost for us with advertising expense? We are promoting The Villages,’ Torname said. ‘We are providing the structure that supports the advertisement for The Villages, and they are selling housing.’
A district official said PWAC will take over maintenance of the bridges ‘six months after they are operational.'”
— Meta Minton, Villages-News.com
Read entire article here
