richlevy • Oct 11, 2008 1:04 pm
As I mentioned in another thread, our homeowners association has rule banning yard signs. We have an informal allowance for political signs, but they are still technically prohibited.
It appears that some municipalities with rules banning or restricting yard signs are being challenged.
It appears that some municipalities with rules banning or restricting yard signs are being challenged.
Though the debate in Lawrence was touched off when a member of Mr. Devers’s campaign complained that Lantigua’s signs were oversized, Burke’s office has recently changed its approach and begun issuing citations – including a couple for Devers signs - based on violations of the state building code rather than size restrictions; according to city rules, people installing any sign larger than eight square feet on buildings must obtain a permit in the interest of public safety.
In Lantigua’s view, the new strategy is an underhanded way to sidestep the shaky legal grounds on which the city’s political sign ordinance stands. He says he’s never seen the state building code applied to political signs before.
“I think this is one of those cases when I have to stand up and say, ‘You know what? That ordinance, it is unconstitutional and you need to modify it,’” he says.
The legal precedent that lower courts typically cite when ruling on political signs is the 1994 US Supreme Court case City of Ladue v. Gilleo. In a unanimous decision, the court struck down a law prohibiting signs at private residences and described residential yard signs as “a venerable means of communication that is both unique and important.”
The court declared that ordinances can regulate the time, place, or manner of political speech only if they also enable residents to express themselves through “ample alternative channels for communication.”
