|
Sl9 N.W.2d 243 Page 4
<br /> (Cite as: 519 N.W.2d 243, X246)
<br /> but can put up az many noncommercial opinion in duration under the ordinance but commercial
<br /> signs as there are issues and ballots, the same as signs such az a 'for rent' sign can be posted
<br /> those professing political speech. During all other indefinitely, the ordinance impermissibly favors
<br /> times of the year, a resident may put up one sign; some forms of commercial speech over political
<br /> either a noncommercial opinion sign or a campaign speech. We disagree. Appellant's argument
<br /> sign, with any message, and multiple messages, if misinterprets the ordinance. The ordinance allows
<br /> desired, on the same sign. In contrast to Goward, one noncommercial opinion sign to be posted at any
<br /> the New Brighton ordinance is decidedly content time of the year for any length of time. That
<br /> neutral. opinion sign can contain any type of non-
<br /> commercial constitutionally protected speech. That
<br /> FN2. Appellant urges on the court consideration of sign, by definition, could include, outside the
<br /> a recent U.S. Supreme Court cox, City of Ladue v. campaign season, political speech. Thus, one
<br /> Gilleo, - U.S. 114 S.Ct. 2038, 129 L.Fd.2d campaign sign or political sign can be posted a[ any
<br /> 36 (1994). We do not fmd Ladue dispositive but time during the year with no durational limit.
<br /> simply inswctive on the general principle that when Further, New Brighton ordinances limit "for sale"
<br /> municipalities ux their legitimate police power to and 'for rent" signs to One pet premises, the same
<br /> regulate signage, that power needs to be narrowly numerical limit imposed upon opinion signs and
<br /> tailored to protect legitimate governmenul interests. political signs, except during a short campaign
<br /> Minimizing visual clutter, maintaining property season where numerical limits go up to the number
<br /> values, public safety, the elimination of traffic of ballot candidates and issues. Also, signs
<br /> hazards, are legitimate purpoxs providing the advertising garage sales, rummage sales, sale of
<br /> regulations are carefully drawn, reasonable, and do produce grown on [he premises, real estate sales,
<br /> not impermissibly prefer one kind of speech over parade of homes production, and Church or school
<br /> another. The failure of the municipal ordinance in events are limited to one per frontage, and these
<br /> the City of endue is simply put. The ladue typo of signs have durational limits az well. Thus,
<br /> ordinance attempted to ban all residential signs New Brighton has done az well as can be expected in
<br /> except for thox falling within one of certain sated balancing the rights of noncommercial opinion
<br /> exemptions. Thus by analogy, thox purpoxs speech, political speech, for sale and for reut signs,
<br /> falling within the listed exemptons were preferred casual and for business sale signs, U cetera.
<br /> over all others. Here, the City of New Brighton
<br /> has done no such thing. The ordinance st issue was When the smoke cleats, Gowned simply does not
<br /> carefully drawn to allow any opinion on any sign at apply as i[ Contains a total prohibition against
<br /> ezacdy the same times that political signs are opinion speech. There is no such prohibition in
<br /> allowed. During the campaign season, campaign New Brighton.
<br /> signs and noncommercial opinion signs arc virtually
<br /> unlimited. The only limit u one sign per ballot We conclude [he ordinance is content-neutral. We
<br /> issue and one per ballot candidate. Between ballot now rum to whether it (I) is narrowly tailored to
<br /> issues, local elections, school board electons, mtx:t significant governmental interests, and (2)
<br /> judicial elections, sate and rational elections, a few leaves open adequate alternative channels of
<br /> m dozens of signs would be allowed. le the communication. Clark, 468 U.S. ar 293, I04 S.Ct.
<br /> noncampaign season, campaign signs and at 3069.
<br /> noncommercial opinion signs lad ezactty the same
<br /> privilege-one sign of any message on any issue at Narrowly tailored to meet substantial government
<br /> any time year around, with fie added benefn to interests.
<br /> homeowners that the one sign could be changed
<br /> daily and Ne one sign could contain any number of Appellant concedes that the interests involved,
<br /> multiple messages. aesthetic and traffic safety, arc substantial
<br /> govertment interests. See Taxpayers for Vincent,
<br /> New Brighton allows various types of commercial 466 U.S. u 806-07, 104 S.Ct. at 2129-30;
<br /> signs such az "for sale" or "for rent" signs. Metromedia Inc., v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 507,
<br />
<br /> Appellant azxrts that since the posting of campaign 101 S.Ct. 2882, 2892, 69 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981). The
<br />
<br /> signs is limited (outside the '247 campaign season) cases cited by appellant and respondent repeat the
<br /> Copr. ° West 1996 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works
<br />
<br />
|