Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

z.g. August 10, 1999 -- Page 3 focusing on the consumption of alcohol and other alleged problems associated with dancing were unrelated to the suppression of free expression. The town wasn't trying to stop people from dancing, it was trying to limit problems asso- ciated with dancing. The problem with the town's ordinance was that it wasn't merely an inci- dental restriction on First Amendment freedoms, and it certainly wasn't "no greater than is essential" to the town's professed interest in regulating alcohol. Although the town claimed it passed the ordinance because of the drinking associated with dances, the ordinance wasn't limited to places where alcohol was consumed. The town could draft a much narrower ordinance aimed at controlling the perceived evils associated with dancing because the ordinance as written prohibited even a performance of The Nutcracker ballet without the town's approval. The town's permitting scheme was also an unconstitutional prior restraint oil free speech because it placed "unbridled discretion in the hands of a govern- ment official." Any law that subjected a First Amendment freedom to the prior restraint of a license without narrow, objective, and definite standards was un- constitutional. In this case, the criteria guiding the town council were vague and amorphous, focusing on the "moral character" of the person applying for tile permit and allowing revocation for "improper conduct." There was no way for a court to determine what was proper or improper under the ordinance. Elam v. Bolling, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Big Stone Gap Div., No. 98-203~B (1999). see also: City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19, 109 S. Ct. 1591, 104 L.Ed. 2d 18 (1989). see also: United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S. Ct. 1673, 20 L.Ed. 2d 6 72 (1968). Home Occupation -- City says front-yard anchor illegally advertises home business OHIO (7/14/99) -- The Houghtalings owned a travel business called Pleasure Cruises that booked its clients on cruise ship vacations. The Houghtalings ran the business out of their home. The business qualified as a "home occupation" under the city code. In ].997, the Houghtalings put a metal replica of an anchor on their front lawn. The anchor was 7 feet 6 inches high and had a 6-foot-long crossbar. The city ordinance that regulated home occupations stated "no sign, adver- tising the home occupation, will be permitted." The ordinance defined "sign" to mean any structure or natural object, including trees, rocks, bushes, or the ground itself, "used to attract attention to any product, place, activity, person, or business." The city planning director told the Houghtalings to remove the anchor'