This weekend (May 6th-9th, 2017) brings us to the American Planning American’s National Conference in New York City. Along with colleagues from around the country, we’ll be talking about everything land use and the First Amendment, from signs to adult businesses, religious land uses, and the public forum doctrine. If you’re planning to be at
In a case that we reported on last year, a federal district court in California granted summary judgment in favor of the City of San Diego in a case involving art murals.
Some of the facts of the case are reported in our prior post. The San Diego sign code exempts from permitting “[p]ainted graphics that are murals, mosaics, or any type of graphic arts that are painted on a wall or fence and do not contain copy, advertising symbols, lettering, trademarks, or other references to the premises, products or services that are provided on the premises where the graphics are located or any other premises.” Otherwise, all signs visible from the right of way are required to obtain a permit, and signs on city-controlled property must obtain a permit as well. Messages on city-controlled property are limited to on-premises speech and “public interest” messages. As we previously noted, the plaintiff, a mural company, was granted approval to place two wall murals in San Diego, but received a violation for the placement of a third mural. The plaintiff believes that the annual Comic-Con event was given special treatment by the city, because certain signs posted around the city during the event were not issued citations.
Continue Reading San Diego’s Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Mural Case
Last week, a court in Missouri ruled that a village’s ordinance prohibiting commercial activity—including commercial photography—in a park was a constitutional restriction on speech.
The Village of Twin Oaks, Missouri had an ordinance that prohibited the use of a village park for commercial purposes. The park was posted with signage that read: “No commercial activity, including commercial photographers.” The stated purpose for the village’s regulation was to ensure public safety and fair use of the park. Josephine Havlak was a professional photographer who takes pictures for wedding and portrait purposes. After Havlak filed suit claiming that the ordinance was a content based and unconstitutional restriction on speech, the village modified the ordinance to allow commercial photographers to use the park in exchange for a $100 permit fee.
Continue Reading Photography May Be Protected Speech, But Village’s Restriction on Park Photography Stands
Considering the issue for the first time, the Eleventh Circuit joined the Ninth in holding that the act of tattooing is sheltered by the First Amendment.
Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit: Tattooing is Protected Speech; Jimmy Buffet Lyrics Do Not Establish a Significant Government Interest
ArchitectureArt, LLC is a mural painting company that painted wall murals on buildings in San Diego, California.
Continue Reading California’s 90-Day Limitations Period for Zoning Challenges Does Not Apply in Facial Attack on San Diego Sign Ordinance