1A, Clear Channel Litigation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Robert H. Lynn April 15, 2008 Page 14 Haumant v. Griffin, 699 N.W.2d 774,778 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Mangold, 274 Minn. at 358,143 N.W.2d at 820). The subject matter of the regulations - billboards - has long been regulated at the local level and Plaintiffs arguments to the contrary have been rejected by the courts. As the Hennepin County District Court concluded in Clear Channel Outdoor v. City of Minnetonka, when rejecting Clear Channel's pre-emption claim, the authority of Minnesota cities to independently regulate signs is longstanding and well-established. Clear Channel Outdoor v. City of Minnetonka, Hennepin County District Court, Case No. 27-CV-06-23485, Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (attached hereto as Exhibit D), at 18 (citing Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of Minn. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492, 162 N.W.2d 206 (1968) (affirming Minnetonka's implied statutory authority to drive new and old billboards out of its residentially-zoned areas - including areas where the federal and state billboard-control statutes declined to reach). Similarly, when Clear Channel's predecessor, Eller Media, asserted that the authority of Minnesota cities to independently regulate signs was preempted, the district court rejected this argument and held that Section 173.10 "specifically pennits municipalities, by ordinance or otherwise, to enact more restrictive provisions concerning advertising devices." Eller Media Co. v. City of St. Paul, Ramsey County District Court, Case No. C7-01-8400, Order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (J. Bjorkman) (holding that Section 173.10 "specifically permits municipalities, by ordinance or otherwise, to enact more restrictive provisions conceming advertising devices."). See also City of COllage Grove v. 0/1,395 N.W.2d 111, 113-115 (Minn. Ct App. 1986); Advantage Media LLC, 456 F.3d at 802-03; Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221, 227,125 N.W.2d 846,851 (1964). The subject matter has certainly not "become solely a matter of state concern;" indeed, the state statute not only explicitly reserves the right of local governments to more restrictively regulate advertising, but provides that "pennit systems ofIegitimate local zoning authorities shall take precedence inside a business area." Minn. Stat. !l 173.13, subd. I. In rejecting Clear Channel's pre-emption claim, the Hennepin County District Court also observed that both Minn. Stat. !l173.1 0 and !l173.20 provided that nothing in state law "shall be construed to abrogate, or affect the provisions of any other law, municipal ordinance, regulation, or resolution which is more restrictive than are the provisions. . . [of state statutes]." Clear Channel Outdoor, Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Exhibit D, at J 8. The Court based this holding, in part, on the express provisions in Chapter 173 mentioned above which recognized the power of municipalities to impose regulations more restrictive than state law. Id. at 18-20. In fact, even the MNDOT application form for an "advertising device permit" states that the permit is "Subject to Local Ordinace [sic]." These factors should be fatal to any pre-emption claim. See Roucheleau, 686 N.W.2d at 890. There is no "partial legislation on the subject matter evincing an intent to treat the subject matter as solely a state concem." The Hennepin County District Court explained that "Clear