Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,/ <br /> <br />that because of their unique nature, allowing only time and temp displays is not a prohibited <br />content-based regulation. It is important not to overstate this, however. Regulations that go further <br />and carve out a broader exception for "public information" are likely to be struck down as <br />impermissibly content-based. <br /> <br />Sign regulations that are not content based are subject to intermediate scrutiny, which tests <br />whether the regulation is substantially related to a significant government interest. This roughly <br />translates to "regulate for a good reason." Cities should take care that the scope of the regulation is <br />not excessive when viewed in light of all of the regulatory objectives, and that they do not create <br />exceptions to the regulations that cannot be justified by reference to one or more of the city's <br />articulated objectives <br /> <br />Big-picture regulatory tools <br />The available research on traffic impacts supports significant content-neutral limits or even bans <br />on dynamic signs for safety reasons. The studies confIrm that billboards can tend to distract <br />drivers, dynamic features contribute to the distraction, and even short distractions can increase the <br />risk of accidents. This is not surprising as promotional materials put out by sign companies <br />themselves boast the signs' ability to hold viewer attention as a benefit of dynamic signs. <br /> <br />Safety is only one concern. Cities may also regulate signs based on values, preferences, and <br />aesthetics. Not every sign is appropriate in every community or every neighborhood. Not every <br />community wishes to become Las Vegas or even downtown Minneapolis. <br /> <br />Cities can take a number of different macro-level approaches to regulation. Some examples <br />include: <br />I. Complete or near-complete bans that do not allow dynamic signs at all. <br />2. Allow dynamic signs with restrictions such as minimum display time, allowing only a <br />percentage of a sign to change, or text size limitations. <br />3. Allow different things in different zoning districts, such as allowing brighter dynamic signs in a <br />downtown business district than in residential neighborhoods. <br />4. Offering incentive programs to billboard companies to allow dynamic signs in exchange for <br />removal of non-conforming static signs. <br />5. Encourage dynamic displays. Some communities like the clean, new look of dynamic signs and <br />encourage them to remove old blighted and poorly maintained signs. <br /> <br />Regulating sign aspects <br />A content-neutral regulation that regulates dynamic signage will be subject to intermediate <br />scrutiny, so a community must show a regulation is substantially related to a significant <br />government interest. In plain language, you must articulate what problem a regulation is intended <br />to address and how the regulation addresses it. <br /> <br />There are at least six aspects of dynamic signs that regulations may address: <br /> <br />1. Duration of messages/ speed of changeover. Studies have described the Zeigarnik effect, a <br />psychological need to see a task through to its end. In the case of dynamic signs, a driver's desire <br />to read an entire message before it changes or to complete a scrolling message has been shown to <br /> <br />2 <br />