Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004

Home

Page 8 -- December 24, 2003 Z.B. 148 only a hypothetical constitutional violation. Abuse was only dealt with if and when a pattern of unlawful favoritism appeared, rather than by insisting upon a degree of rigidity found in few legal ageements. Time limits were not required when the licensing scheme at issue was con- tent-neutral. Even though specific time limits would have improved the ordi- nance, this, by itseff, was not enough to invalidate the entire law. Citation: Granite State Outdoor Advertising b~c. v. City, of St. Petersburg, il th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 02-16433 (2003). The ll rh Circuit has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. see also: New E~gtand Regional Council of Carpenters v. Kinton, 284 F. 3d 9 (2002). see also: Griffin v. Secreta~7 of' Veterans Affairs, 288 F. 3d 1309 (2002). Signs -- New landowner removes advertising sign Advertising company sues village for damages ILLINOIS (10/20/03) -- Beginning in 1980, Clear Channel Outdoor Inc., en- tered into a series of leases to operate an outdoor advertising sign. In 2002, Rubloff Oakridge Algonquin L.L.C. bought the property the sig-n stood upon. The Village of Algonquin had annexed the parcel of property the sign was located on in 1995. In 2002, the village enacted an ordinance requ/ring the sign be removed for faLlure to comply with the village sign code. Rubloff removed the sign and destroyed it. Clear Channel sued the village' arguing the village had engaged in inverse condemnation by taking down and destroying the sign. [t claimed the village was liable for damages. DECISION: Judgment in l~avor of village. The village did not engage in inverse condemnation. Inverse condemnation was a cause of action against a governmental defen- dant to recover the value of property that was taken in fact by a governmental entity, although not through eminent domain procedures. Such a claim could be maintained for the destruction of personal property even though no real property was taken. However, a government land use }egulation did not constitute a claim if it substantially advanced legitimate state interests and did not deny an owner economically viable use of the land. Clear Channel claimed the annexation of the property and the ban on bill- boards deprived Clear Channel of alt economically viable use of the sign. How- ever, it was Rubloff who took the sign down, destroyed it, and did not return it to Clear Channel. Ultimately. the damages complained oll were not in fact caused by the village. Cir~trion: Clear Channel O~trdoor b~c. v. R~.~blqO'~ Oakridge ,4lgonq~dn L.L.C., U.S. D:'srricr Com'r ~br rile ~Vorrher~ District of (llinois, Eastern. Division, No. 03 C 3063 (2003).