Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/02/2004

Home

Page '2- August 10, 2004 Z.B. Signs -- Billboard company says sign code illegally restricts noncommercial speech Argues sign code is consequently void Citation: Coral.Springs Streer Sys-te. ms Inc. v. CiO, of Sunrise, ]]~h U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 03-11497 The ]] th Circuit has jttrisdicfion over Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. FLORIDA (06/07/04) -- Coral Springs Street Systems constructed billboards on real estate it bought or' leased. Through another party, it entered into a contract with a car dealership to erect a pole sign overlooldng a busy expressway. However, several provisions of the agreement violated t~e local sign code· Among other things, pole signs were prohibited and only one sign could be erected on each piece of property. Since the car dealership already had a sign, the construction of another clearly violated the code. Coral Springs applied for a permit to erect an off-premises outdoor adver- · rising sign on a pole. At the top of the pole, Coral Springs intended to place a two-sided, illuminated, 672-square-foot sign face. The city denied the application, finding the proposed sign violated the sign code in several places, namely those regulating offsite signs. Coral Springs sued, arguing the sign code was void because its restrictions unconstitutionally prohibited offsite noncommercial speech, such as .political signs, along with offsite commercial speech. The court ruled in its favor. The city appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The sign code did not impermissibly restrict noncommercial speech. Coral Springs tried to characterize the different treatment of onsite and offsite signs a~ an impermissible restriction on noncommercial speech. The sign code distinguished between onsite commercial and offsite commercial advertising, but made no reference to noncommercial speech. Thus, Coral Springs argued these restrictions applied to noncommercial speech as well. According to local law, noncommercial messages were by definition onsite signs. Therefore, the onsite/offsite restrictions did not effect noncommercial speech, since no matter their location, they were considered onsite signs. An idea, unlike a product, could be viewed as located wherever the idea ,,vas pressed, that is, wherever the speaker was located. Consequently, the restric- tions on offsite advertising signs did not include noncommercial speech. see also: Cidzens ~or Responsible Government < Davidson, ,.~d F. 3d ]174 (2000) see olso: F!oHda Outdoor .4dve;ri~ing, LLC v. City of Boyn. ron Beach, , ~ 80 2004 :,Su~nian ?'miisiqing '}roup. any 'eproduc:lon :s prot~biteci. ?or more information ptease ,sail 1617/ 542-0048.