Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Warren E. Peterson <br />Jerome P. Filla <br />Daniel Witt Fram <br />Glenn A. Bergman <br />John Michael Miller <br />Michael T. Oberle <br />Steven H. Bruns. <br />Paul W. Fahning. <br />Sonja R. Ortiz <br />Amy K. L Schmidt <br />Ben I. Rust <br />Jared M. Goerlitz <br /> <br />P~RSQ\J, <br />FRAM BERGMAN <br /> <br />PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION <br /> <br />Suite 800 <br />55 East Fifth Street <br />St. Paul. MN 55101~17J8 <br />16511291-8955 <br />(6511228-1753 facsimile <br />www.pfb~pa.com <br /> <br /> <br />Direct dial # (651) 290-6915 <br />aschmidt@pfb-pa.ccm <br /> <br />September 6, 2007 <br /> <br />James Lehnhoff <br />City of Arden Hills <br />1245 West highway 96 <br />Arden Hills, MN 55112-5743 <br /> <br />Re: Constitutional claims raised by Clear Channel <br /> <br />Dear James, <br /> <br />Clear Channel's attorney, Marvin Liszt, sent a letter to Jerry Filla on August 15, <br />2007. Initially the letter was not sent to the City, but as I understand it, Mr. Liszt <br />did recently forward a copy to you and asked that the issues he raises in that letter <br />be added to the agenda for the Council's meeting on September 10, 2007. <br />Specifically, his letter says, <br /> <br />. . . this entire process raises grave concerns regarding Clear <br />Channel's First Amendment rights. I believe that if this matter <br />proceeds to litigation Clear Channel will be able to show that its First <br />Amendment rights have been violated, and that the city [sic] may well <br />have treated Clear Channel disparately in denying its permit for <br />lighting reasons while permitting on-premise LED signs in similar <br />zoning districts. . . <br /> <br />In response to Mr. Liszt's assertions, I have the following comments. <br /> <br />First, as a general rule, a city has the authority to regulate signs based on aesthetic <br />and traffic safety concerns, and these have been held to be significant governmental <br />interests. Metromedia v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S.490, 507-508, 101 S.Ct. <br />2882,69 LEd.2d 800 (1981). <br /> <br />A. Regulation of Content. <br /> <br />As with any other free speech/First Amendment claim, the City's regulation, here the <br />Arden Hills sign and/or zoning ordinances, would be subjected to a higher level of <br />scrutiny than other types of land use regulations (land use regulations are generally <br />subject to a rational basis test, i.e., whether the regulation is a rational means to <br /> <br />'ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN <br />