The city denied requests for nine billboards and now stands accused in federal court of having an unconstitutional sign ordinance.
By MEGAN SCOTT
Published June 25, 2003
OLDSMAR - Clearwater and St. Petersburg have both fought legal battles over their attempts to limit billboards in their communities. Now apparently it's Oldsmar's turn.
Lockridge Outdoor Advertising Agency has filed a federal lawsuit in Tampa against Oldsmar, contending that the city's sign ordinance is unconstitutional.
Bill Lockridge, the president of the company, wants to construct nine 17- by 48-foot billboards in commercial or industrial areas around town. He leased the spots and applied for permits on May 29. All those applications were denied.
Oldsmar community development director Greg Scoville said he called Lockridge on May 30 to tell him that he was denying the applications based on the city's sign ordinance.
According to the land development code, "off-premise signs, including billboard signs, except where specifically provided for elsewhere in the article," are prohibited.
In a followup letter, Scoville wrote, "Had someone from your agency contacted the Community Development Department prior to the submission of the applications, we could have saved you significant time and effort in preparing the applications."
Lockridge's attorney, E. Adam Webb, filed a complaint against the city on June 16. The city has 20 days from the June 17 date it was served with the summons to respond.
City Manager Bruce Haddock and City Attorney Tom Trask are on vacation and could not be reached for comment this week. Lockridge said he was advised by his attorney not to comment.
"It's just certainly an issue I feel is only fair and right and proper," said Lockridge, who lives in Oldsmar and has been in business for 32 years. "That's really all I can say."
Lockridge applied for billboards at the following locations: 400 Racetrack Road, 3166 Tampa Road, 3657 Tampa Road, 3850 Tampa Road, 3906 Tampa Road, 3970 Tampa Road, 109 Bayview Blvd. and 3182 Curlew Road, Nos. 1 and 2. Those locations include a Dairy Queen, National Auto Service Center and Shurgard National Storage.
The billboards would have been about 52 feet tall with 816-square-foot faces.
Webb specializes in unconstitutional sign restrictions. His firm, Webb and Porter in Atlanta, suffered a setback in a similar case last year against the city of Clearwater.
In that case, Webb's client, Granite State Outdoor Advertising Inc., filed federal lawsuits in August 2001 against Clearwater, St. Petersburg and St. Pete Beach contending that each city's sign rules place unconstitutional limits on free speech.
In Clearwater, the Georgia company had requested permission to put up eight billboards, about 65 feet high and possibly taller on U.S. 19 and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The applications were denied.
Although U.S. District Judge James Moody sided with the city, he found some problems with Clearwater's sign ordinance and struck a handful of provisions he found to be internally inconsistent or unconstitutional.
Webb did not want to elaborate on the arguments made in the complaint against Oldsmar, saying he "didn't want to try the case in the newspaper."
But in the nearly 30-page complaint, he wrote that the city's sign ordinance has several restrictions, including permitting, placement, number and construction, and that the city offers no specific evidence for those limitations.
For example, he wrote that the ordinance makes it illegal to post a sign within the city without obtaining a permit and contains prohibitions on messages signs may display. Lockridge's applications did not specify what the billboards were going to say.
Webb also contended that the permit procedures contain no time limits in which city officials can allow or deny a request. The applicant is not allowed to post the sign until the permit is granted.
"Thus, officials may choose to delay their response for months or even years," the lawsuit said. "Should such a delay be imposed, the applicant is powerless to post the requested sign."
Scoville said besides calling Lockridge the following day, he faxed and mailed the letter denying the applications a few days later. Lockridge chose not to appeal the decision.
There was no further correspondence between Lockridge and the city, Scoville said.
Webb also wrote in the complaint that city officials have too much power when it comes to deciding which signs to allow. He said that there is no compelling government interest underlying the ordinance.
He claims that Lockridge has been deprived of his right to post commercial and noncommercial messages on signs in the city.
"The main thing that interests Mr. Lockridge is the permission to put up the signs he's seeking," Webb said.
Webb argues that his client would have collected substantial revenue on a monthly basis from the signs. No monetary figure has yet been placed on that lost revenue. He is seeking reimbursement for court costs, attorney's fees and permission to operate and construct the requested signs.
The city only has one billboard that was constructed before that parcel of land was annexed, and residents have complained about it. City officials have talked to the owner of the property about removing it.
Scoville is in the process of revising the city's sign ordinance, but he doesn't anticipate revising the billboard prohibition.
"The city has an economic base which relies on an attractive business environment," Scoville said. "In order to foster a desirable community in which to live and do business, a pleasing, visually attractive urban environment is of great importance."
