|
||||||||
|
Right or blight?
Gov. Jeb Bush has signed a bill to strip localities of control over the billboards that blight their streets and vistas. He and the Legislature have put the interests of the billboard lobby ahead of the public interest. Local courts have long said it is permissible for communities to force the removal of billboards as long as their owners are given a number of years to amortize their investment. But Bush believes this approach violates the owners' property rights and has signed legislation eliminating the amortization option. The move is a huge victory for the powerful billboard industry that has been using every tool at its disposal to keep their signs in our face. Under the new law, if counties and cities want to beautify their surroundings, they will now have to negotiate with the sign owners and hope the billboard companies will agree to alternative placements. If no agreement is reached, the local governments must pay the owners large sums, equivalent to market value, for the removal of the signs. The move will delay if not derail many local efforts to remove billboards. Billboards loom over Florida's byways demanding attention, drawing the eye away from the passing orchard or city skyline. When situated in cities, they drive down property values and undermine streets' aesthetics. Locally, we have been partially successful in their elimination. While Clearwater is still battling to remove them after a 17-year fight, St. Petersburg has been able to limit them to certain commercial zones, and St. Pete Beach has picked off all but one. Pinellas County, which was supposed to have eliminated all billboards by 1999, is still struggling to enforce the rules in the face of multiple lawsuits. The new law won't affect ongoing lawsuits filed before January 2001. In Bush's letter to Secretary of State Katherine Harris explaining his decision to sign the law, he notes the new rules will only impact existing billboards. Localities, Bush says, are still free to prohibit future billboards. While this is true, the industry is attacking prohibitions on future billboards from another tack. Granite State Outdoor Advertising Inc., a Georgia-based company, has filed a federal lawsuit against St. Petersburg, St. Pete Beach and Clearwater. It alleges these cities are violating the First Amendment by refusing to allow the construction of 19 billboards, each up to 85 feet tall with 672-square-feet of sign. Granite State is right on one count: The regulation of signs does implicate free speech rights. A wholesale prohibition on signs on private property would surely violate the First Amendment. A citizen who wants to support a political candidate by displaying a lawn sign -- or who wants to post a "for sale" sign, for that matter -- is exercising a fundamental right. But that doesn't mean the sign can be of monstrous size, illuminated through the night and towering over the neighborhood. It is perfectly in keeping with the First Amendment for local governments to impose reasonable restrictions on the size and place of billboards. Courts have often ruled that billboards can be banned for a variety of reasons from enhanced driver safety to protecting the aesthetics of a community, without offending free-speech rights. However, sign ordinances are tricky. There are numerous legal pitfalls that may cause an ordinance to be set aside by a court. To pass constitutional muster, a law must be precisely and clearly written and cannot regulate the content of speech. Granite State may have some technical legal points to make about the way cities have drafted their ordinances. If so, a federal court could give municipal attorneys the chance to retool the laws. But legal precedent is crystal clear in saying that billboards can be constitutionally restricted or banned. © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 727-893-8111
|
From the Times Opinion page |
![]()