COM 0042.001 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

KONA COUNCIL Harry Kim M E M B 7.,.-t ., ►, Mayor 2Zim .2 P�21 COUNTY Or HAWAII C�Ounfij of �aivait Lincoln S.T. Ashida Corporation Counsel Gerald Takase Assistant Corporation Counsel THE CORPORATION COUNSEL 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4262 • (808) 961-8251 • FAX (808) 961-8622 MEMORANDUM TO: Council Member Curtis Tyler Hawaii County Council FROM: Patricia K. O'Toole Deputy Corporation Counsel DATE: June 27, 2001 RE: Proposed Revisions to Sign Code As requested, we reviewed the draft of revisions to the Sign Code. By way of background, the draft was reviewed with some basic constitutional issues in mind. The Code deals mainly with commercial speech which in general is afforded less protection than other kinds of speech, but, nonetheless, is accorded a measure of constitutional protection. As is often the case, if questions arise, the findings which indicate the need for the regulation and the goals to be accomplished by the regulation are extremely important. The findings here appear comprehensive but we might want to give it some thought and supplement them in some areas of concern. As further general guidance, we can consider the tests set forth in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. vs. Public Services Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 100 S Ct. 2343, 65 L Ed 2d 341 (1980). The case expresses the principle that the constitutional protection available to commercial expression turns on the nature of the expression and of the governmental interest secured by its regulation. A test is set forth in commercial speech issues. First is the expression protected by the First Amendment. Secondly is the asserted government interest substantiated. If the answers are yes, the question is asked whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted and whether the regulation is more extensive than is necessary to secure that interest. In other words, is there a compelling state interest and is this the least intrusive method of reaching that goal? There is also a Hawaii Supreme Court case which recognizes that commercial speech is protected by the U.S. and Hawaii State constitutions although it is accorded lesser protection than other forms of speech and the protection afforded commercial speech depends upon the nature of the expression and of the governmental interest secured by its regulation. State of Hawaii vs. Bloss, 64 Haw. 148, 637 P.2d 1117 (1981), reconsideration denied 1125/82, as amended 2/8/82.