My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-21-16 Joint WS with PTRC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
03-21-16 Joint WS with PTRC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2016 3:05:39 PM
Creation date
3/18/2016 3:02:09 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
154
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />City of Arden Hills <br />City Council Work Session for March 21, 2016 <br /> <br />P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-011 - Sign Code Updates\Memos_Reports_16-011 <br />Page 2 of 2 <br /> <br />The Good News Community Church, which did not have a set meeting location and hosted <br />Sunday services at various locations, began placing signs in the town providing directions to <br />those services. The number, location and frequency of the signs raised concerns for the <br />community. The town cited the church for exceeding the time limits for displaying a temporary <br />directional sign and for failing to include an event date on the signs. The church sued, <br />challenging the sign code under the First Amendment. <br /> <br />The U.S. Supreme Court held that the sign code was unconstitutional, reasoning that it was a <br />content-based regulation that did not survive a strict-scrutiny review under which a challenged <br />regulation must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The Supreme Court <br />reasoned that the sign code is content-based on its face because it defines the categories of <br />temporary, political, and ideological signs on the basis of their messages and subjects each <br />category to different restrictions. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015). The full <br />opinion can be reviewed at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-502_9olb.pdf. <br /> <br /> <br />Attachments <br /> <br />None. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.