Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 10 exemption provisions made impermissible content -based distinctions between nonconunercial signs containing political messages, "political signs" that advocate for or against voting for a candidate or a political issue subject to an upcoming election, and other types of signs such as legal notices, signs promoting the safety and general welfare, and holi- day decorations. Both parties asked the court to find there were no material issues of fact in dispute and to issue summary judgment in their favor on the law alone. DECISION: Judgment for Bee's Auto. The United States District Court, M.D. Florida, concluded that the City's Sign Code was a content -based restriction on speech, which was unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Con- stitution because it was not narrowly tailored to accomplish the City's asserted interests in aesthetics, local business, and traffic safety, and since those interests were not "compelling." In so holding the court explained that clearly Bee's Auto's signs constituted noncommercial, political speech that was protected under the First Amendment. It was also clear that the City's Violation Notice and the Sign Code's regulations, including the permitting and locational requirements, were restrictions on Bee's Auto's protected speech. The court then was left to determine whether those restrictions were unconstitutional. In order to determine whether to address the issue under intermediate or strict scrutiny, the court had to first determine whether the Violation Notice and the Sign Code's provisions were content based or content neutral. The court explained that "[i]f a law is content neutral, it is subject to intermediate scrutiny; however, if a law is content based, it is subject to strict scrutiny review." The court said that, "[ajs a general rule, laws that by their terms distinguish favored speech from disfavored speech on the basis of the ideas or views expressed are content based." The court concluded that the portions of the Sign Code under review were content -based. Section 102-7 identified 18 types of signs that were exempt from the permit requirements, subject only to the limitations related to that type of sign. The majority of those exempted signs were content based. For example, said the court, under the Sign Code, a property owner could erect as many exempt business directory signs as he or she wished, and public, nonprofit, or religious facilities could post an unlimited number of exempt bulletin boards and identification signs, and there was no permit requirement for, or limit on the amount of, holiday and seasonal decorations that could displayed. However, a property owner wanting to erect a noncommercial sign expressing views on political issues could only post one such sign without obtain- ing a permit, and had to adhere to numerous size and setback © 2014 Thomson Reuters 7