1A, Clear Channel Litigation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Robert H. Lynn April 15, 2008 Page 15 Channel's statutory analysis for preemption would require that this Court give an unduly narrow reading to Minnesota's statutes which provide that Minnesota localities can impose more restrictive ordinances on advertising and advertising devices than required by state law." Clear Channel Outdoor, Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Exhibit D, at 18. Finally, allowing local governments to regulate changing billboards more restrictively than the state can hardly have "an adverse effect on the general state population." While local authority may result in a patchwork of varying regulations, that does not warrant the pre-emption oflocal authority. See Mangold Midwest Co., 143 N.W.2d at 821. For all these reasons, the Hennepin County District Court was correct in its conclusion that "the record does not demonstrate that the Minnesota legislature intended to occupy the field of outdoor billboard regulation, and preclude municipalities from imposing more restrictive rules." Clear Channel Outdoor, Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Exhibit D, at 19. Accordingly, the City's external lighting regulation applies to Plaintiffs sign. And because Plaintiffs sign violates that lighting regulation, the City's enforcement of its Sign Ordinance was lawful and the City is entitled to the removal of the LED sign. 3. The City is Not Estopped from Enforcing its Sign Ordinance Plaintiff claims that the City is somehow estopped from enforcing its sign ordinance or waived its ability to do so because it approved Plaintiffs electrical permit application and because the City has never enforced sign permit requirements against Clear Channel. Significantly, Plaintiffs electrical permit application contains no information or disclosure by Plaintiff that it was seeking the electrical pennit for the purpose of installing an LED sign face. Even though the City's sign code requires a permit for any sign alteration, Plaintiff failed to submit a sign permit application in advance of the installation of the LED sign face, thereby depriving the City of notice and information that Plaintiff intended to install an LED sign face. Indeed, Plaintiffs strategy was to secretly install LED sign faces on signs located in Arden Hills and other Minnesota communities without regard for whether such signs were permitted by local regulations and without obtaining prior approvals from the municipalities in which such signs were located. The Hennepin County District Court specifically found that there was "substantial evidence to support Minnetonka's claim that Clear Channel avoided disclosing its plans to deploy LED billboards in the City of Minnetonka, and operated 'under the radar' in order to get the billboards up and running, in order to meet its expansion and profit goals for 2006." Clear Channel Outdoor, Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Exhibit D, at 10. Accordingly, the fact that the City granted an electrical permit based on an application that failed to contain information regarding Plaintiffs intentions to install an LED sign face does not mean that it impliedly granted permission to Plaintiff to install an LED sign face or waived its right to enforce its own sign ordinance and require a sign permit for any sign alteration. Nor does the fact that the City did not raise any concerns during Plaintiffs quiet installation of the LED sign