COM 0042.001 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MEMORANDUM Council Member Curtis Tyler June 27, 2001 Page 2 Our specific comments are as follows: The definition of "aerial sign" is that it is a sign located above "the business establishment' and "the business establishment property." This seems to imply that an aerial sign is one that advertises a business and is flown above that particular business from the property on which the business is located, perhaps leaving room for argument that if the sign is flown on property adjacent to the business, it does not fall within the definition. However, since apparently all aerial signs are prohibited, the definition does not need to limit itself to mean only signs somehow connected to the enterprise property. 2. The ordinance prohibits signs which are obscene without providing any definition for the term, thus, making enforcement difficult as well as subjecting enforcement officials to accusations of acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. This whole area is, of course, difficult to precisely define. I have attached § § 712-1210 and § 712-1211 of the penal code for your information. Perhaps, reference could be made to these definitions. 3. Regarding § 3-9 and singling out "real estate" signs. I do have some concern that this is a regulation of speech based on the content of speech and favors/disfavors certain commercial speech. Your notes indicate that attorneys on Oahu who have voted on this feel it is appropriate. It would be helpful if you could let me know who I could contact about this. The case of Linvale Associates. Inc. vs. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977), dealt with an ordinance which fined "for sale" signs on residential property. The town justified the signs as being reasonable regulations of time, place, and manner. The Court considered what alternatives were available. The ordinance was struck down in part because it forbade realty advertising only and was, therefore, directed to the content of the signs and not their size, place, or manner. The Court held that the town could not deny information to citizens which is neither false nor misleading. 4. Re § 3-17(b). This provision requires a notice of transfer to be filed with Department of Public works within 90 days from the effective date of transfer of real property on which the sign is erected. This would be difficult in enforcement. Also, is it meant to apply only to sales of real property or of transfer of any interest, such as leasing or subleasing? 5. Re § 3-36. Are these signs which are now legal without a permit which you wish covered by this grandfathering provision? Also, this section refers to sentencing to a "fee" of $100 per day. "Fine" would appear to be the more appropriate word. 6. § 3-39(b) is somewhat confusing. Is it meant to say that each day the illegal sign is not removed, or the problem not corrected, is a further offense after conviction? 7. § 3-39(c). There should be space between "to" and "fines" in the second line.