COM 0454.020 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Barbara Bell, Cour~y Clerk 23 May 1996 Page 2 The Supreme Court has held that a restriction on speech is content-based when the message conveyed determines the applicability of the restriction. Cincinnati v. Discoverv Network. Inc., US 113 S. Ct. 1505, 1516-17, 123 LEd 2d 99. The Hawaii County Ordinance, HCC Section 3-22, which classifies various types of signs for special consideration under the ordinance, distinguishes between 'announcing', real estate, sub-division and political campaign signs. For ezample, political campaign signs can be no more than one square foot in area, while real estate signs can be as large as eight square feet. Political signs can onlp be erected during a 70-day 'season", while sub-division signs caa remain erected for one year. Clearly, the type of treatment afforded is determined by the menage, and thus the ordinance can not be considered "content neutral'. The difficulties with this ordinance are compounded, ironically, by the fact the while courts have conceded a greater right to regulate speech with commercial content, Ohralite v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 US 447, 455-56, 98-Sct 1912, 1918, 56 L. Ed. 2d. 444 (1978), City of Cincinnati v. Discoverv Network, Inc. suvra., while this regulation actually favors certain commercial signs. The County has a legitimate interest to regulate signage for reasons of aesthetics, traffic safety and the prevention of clutter. Baldwin v. Redwood City, 540 F. 2d. 1360 (9th Cir 1976). This interest, however, can only be sustained, if it is no more restrictive than necessary to protect that interest Ibid at 1372. To be valid, any restrictions imposed must be narrowly tailored to protect these interests, One World Familv Now v. City and County of Honolulu, 76 F. 3d, 1009 (9th Cir 1996). An ordinance which allows real estate signs to be larger than political ones can not be considered "narrowly tailored'. This office has previously reviewed this ordinance, and found it to fall short of Constitutional standards. (See attached opinion of Frederick Giannini, dated July 21, 1988) Upon re-examination, we have come to the same conclusion. We can not, therefore, take any action on referrals of violations, until such time as the deficiencies referred to, are remedied.* Very truly yo , R WURDE Corporation Counsel RDW:1475L *Attached for your consideration, is a discussion of an ordinance which has been judicially approved. Brayton v. City of New Brighton, 519 NW 2d. 243, (Minn App 1994).