Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 12 alternative uses for land, and posing other problems that legitimately call for regulation" municipalities may therefore validly enact ordinances regulating the time, place, and manner signs may be erected therein. The court further explained that in evaluating the constitutionality of sign ordinances it must first determine whether the ordinance is content -based or content -neutral in order to determine the level of scrutiny to which the ordinance is subject. Here, the court found that the City's sign ordinance was content -neutral because it limited the size and placement of signs in order to protect property values, prevent distractions for drivers, and avoid aesthetic clutter, but was silent as to ideas, views, or content. Emphasizing that nothing in the ordinance "remotely suggest[ed] `disagreement with the message[s] [that might be] convey[ed]' on signs posted within the City," the court concluded that the City's new sign ordinance was content -neutral. In evaluating the constitutionality of the content -neutral sign ordinance, the court applied "intermediate scrutiny." Under that standard, a sign ordinance will be constitutional if it is "narrowly tailored to serve a significant govern- ment interest and leaves open ample alternative channels for communication." Here, the court found that the new sign ordinance was "narrowly tailored" to serve the interests of traffic safety and aesthetics; it was "reasonably fit to accomplish the City's stated goals, without prohibiting substantially more speech than necessary." The court also found that the new sign ordinance left open "ample alterna- tive channels for communication." The court found that the ordinance did not . ban signs altogether, but simply limited their location and size. Moreover, the court noted that residents were permitted to solicit their views door-to-door; through the mail or via telephone; speech at public meetings; placing mes- sages on cars; or using the Internet or local media. Since, under the sign ordinance Sanctuary had those other methods of conveying their message and were free to post signs that complied with size and location requirements, the court concluded that the sign ordinance did not violate the First Amendment. See also: Neighborhood Enterprises, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, 644 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1543, 182 L. Ed. 2d 163 (2012). See also: Clark v. Connnumity for Creative Non -Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 104 S. Ct. 3065, 82 L. Ed. 2d 221 (1984). 2014 Thomson Reuters 11