San Fransisco ordinance violates First Amendment?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Contest Promotions, LLC v. City and County of San Francisco, California 

Section 611 of the San Francisco Planning Code provides that “no new general advertising signs shall be permitted at any location within the City as of March 5, 2002.” This ban applies to any sign “which directs attention to a business, commodity, industry or other activity which is sold, offered or conducted elsewhere than on the premises upon which the Sign is located,” and also to any sign advertising a product or service that is “only incidentally” offered on the premises. 

Issue before SCOTUS: Whether the First Amendment permits a municipality to ban all signs, of any kind, advertising off-premises commercial activity, without making any showing that the ban furthers a substantial government interest in a direct, material and tailored way.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Yeah, that sounds like an overreach that's destined to get smacked down.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Keep me updated on this case Nola.  Super intriguing, but my initial instinct is that the local government will lose here.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

@Brad_ATX @TitanTiger I agree with y’all. 

Surprisingly though, the lower court dismissed plaintiff’s suite becuase they determined that the ordinance advances a legitimate governmental interest. On appeal, that decision was affirmed.

Now, I’m not sure whether the Supreme Court has decided to take the case. I’m willing to bet that they will. I believe they will decide the case differently. 

[homersapien 11,453]

Hilton Head island has had strong restrictions on commercial signs for years.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Germantown, TN does or did as well.

[AUDub 11,184]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Hilton Head island has had strong restrictions on commercial signs for years.

Local governments are generally given very broad latitude on this sort of thing. We'll see just how broad they can be. 

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Now I'm not sure whether the Supreme Court has decided to take the case. I’m willing to bet that they will. I believe they will decide the case differently. 

Think we'll know on the 23rd whether they'll grant cert. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

15 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Think we'll know on the 23rd whether they'll grant cert.

If you visit SCOTUS blog, you can read the amicus briefs as well. 

[SaltyTiger 7,864]

Don't know about now but Peachtree City used to have some pretty stringent codes regarding signage and advertising. Have noticed a few place around Tallahassee appear to follow a like standard. I like it.  

[augolf1716 21,303]

Boca Raton Fl. use to not sure anymore

[PUB78 1,363]

6 hours ago, AUDub said:

Local governments are generally given very broad latitude on this sort of thing. We'll see just how broad they can be. 

Think we'll know on the 23rd whether they'll grant cert. 

You are correct.

[AU64 10,122]

What I've noticed is limits on size and height....but perhaps that's a compromise to the business community and consumers......since both benefit from signs of some sort that let people know where stores are located and what they sell.   

Lots of places have restrictions on billboards though......for example in the state of Mississippi on I-10 apparently has laws that casino signs have to be at least 20 feet apart and no more than 2000 SF in size with height limits of 50 feet..