01/06/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

November 25, 2004-- Page 3 interest in her campaign, she displayed political signs in support of her candi- dacy. Specifically, she placed a large signboard on the sidewalk in front of her office with signs on either side. BeauLieu was ticketed for displaying the signs. Under the sign regulations, political signs were only allowed on residential, property. Although temporary commercial real estate sigus were allowed in the business distriCt, a political si=ma could be displayed only if it replaced a business s permitted on-premise sign. Beaulieu sued, arguing the si=on regulations were an unconstitutional bur- den on her First Amendment right of free speech. DECISION: Judgment in favor of Beaulieu. The sign regulations were unconstitutional.. A municipal regulation requiring proponents of political speech to choose between displaying the one permissible' commercial sign or substituting the commercial sign with a temporary political sign burdened core political speech. Business proprietors were forced to choose between advertising a busi- ness that was integral to their livelihood or generating public awareness throu~h the relatively inexpensive vehicle of political campaign signs. Allowing temporary real estate signs and not allowing temporary political signs favored commercial speeCh over political speech and was an unconstitu- tional content-based restriction. Even where the government declared a policy Of promoting aesthetics and · traffic safety., restrictions intended to accomplish those interests traditionally failed to pass constitutional review when they burdened political speech. Consequently, the city's interests in aesthetics and traffic safety, though substantial, were not sufficiently ovemding to satisfy the'strict scrutiny of constitutional review. see also: Granite State Outdoor Advertising [nc. v. City of Clearwater, 35I F. 3d 1112 (2003). Telecommunications-- Company wants to place telecommunications tower · in center of town Town finds company did not explore all alternative locations Citation: CelIco Par'~r~ership v. The Town of Grafton, U.S. District Court for the District of' Massachusetts, No. 02- I ] 600-RCL (2004) MASSACHUSETTS ('09/28/04) -- Cellco partnership wanted to place a tete~ communications facility in the center of the Town of Grafton to fill gaps in its cellular service. The facility would consist of a tower located within a residen- tial zone that would stand at least 100 feet tall. During public hearings, the Grafton Planning Board asked Cetlco to re- search alternative sites for the cell tower. The board suggested that Cetlco could build the tower on a public water facility nearby. Many neighboring property owners protested the project because they were concerned with the ','isihilit¥. ~'>f the r'acilitv from the historic town =re~.n.~, '~ 2004 C, um~an ?~Jotisninq r3roup. ,,-Iny ~-eproduction ~s prohibited. For more information please call (6'i7) 542-0048. 87