Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin The court found that the Commission's policy against "personal at- tacks" was content-neutral and therefore not facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court said .this was because the policy served purposes unrelated to the content of expression even if it had an incidental effect on some speakers or messages but not others. The court found the policy was adopted and employed to serve the legitimate pub- lic interest in maintaining civility and decorum during the public com- ment sessions of public meetings. The court found that denying a speak- er the right to launch personal attacks did not interfere with what that speaker could say without employing such attacks. In any case, the court found that the Commission's policy against personal attacks was not, as Steinburg had argued, used to silence him. Rather, the court found that Litton excluded Steinburg because of his re- fusal to remain on subject and Litton's observation that Steinburg's con- duct was disrupting the order of the meeting. The court also rejected Steinburg's argument that he was unconstitution- ally silenced beca~se he expressed a particular viewpoint. The court found. Steinburg was not treated any differently than speakers before him at the meeting. Other speakers were also repeatedly reminded to stay: on-topic, found the court. The court found that Steinburg was excluded because of his continued refusal to remain on-topic and his disruptive conduct. See also: Collinson v. Gott, 895 E2d 994 (4th Cir. 1990). Case Note: The court emphasized that its holding did not preclude a challenge to the Commission's "personal attacks" policy based on misuse of the policy to chill or silence speech in a given circumstance. Mootness-BZA dismisses variance application as moot after historic preservation board rejects design '. Developer argues BZA's dismissal was arbitrary and capnclOlls Citation: N Street Follies Ltd. Partnership v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 2008 WL 2276000 (D.C. 2008) N Street Follies Limited Partnership (Follies) owned several lots in the city. It wanted to build a hotel on the lots. The nature of the project required special exceptions and variances from the city's zoning regula- tions. It also required approval under the city's Historic Protection ACt (the Act). Under the Act, approval for construction in historic areas was 8 @ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest 56 ---.