CC_Minutes_2003_0106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

JAN-06-2003 14:22 RATWIK ROSZAK MALONEY 6123390038 P.05 Mr. Neal Beets January 6, 2003 Page 4 of5 to serve a compelling government interest, and are narrowly drawn to achieve that end, and (4) if the restrictions are content-neutral, whether they serve a substantial government interest1 are narrowly tailored to further this interest, and leave open ample alternative means for communicating the desired message. Brayton v. City of New Brighton, 519 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. App. 1994); Simon & Schuster~ Inc. v. New York Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105 (1991). An ordinance prohibiting all "opinion signs" in a residential neighborhood would likely be found to burden protected speech. Brayton at 245. Prohibiting residents from displaying only Save Roseville signs while allowing other opinion signs would be characterized as a content..based restriction and is only constitutional if justified by a compelling government interest. Courts have held that the City's interest in aesthetics, and retaining the residential character of its neighborhoods is not a compelling government interest. Brayton at 245; Goward at 466. As a result, it is very improbable a court would uphold such a restriction. On the other hand, the City could consider adoption of a content..neutral regulation prohibiting all noncommercial signs on residential property. 111e regulation oftrallic, safety, and neighborhood aesthetics are considered substantial government interests. Brayton at 245. However, any such ordinance would have to be narrowly tailored and leave open ample alternative means for comml.ll1icating the messa.ge. While a ban on all noncommercial signs would be facially content-neutral, it is our opinion that it would present difficult legal issues. As noted above, courts are reluctant to infringe on a citizen's right to communicate by residential sign, especially when the message contains a criticism of the government. City of Ladue at 56-57; Goward at 564 (stating, "Respondenfs signs vent his criticism of city action, Such political speech is at the core of first amendment protection, and the city must 'allow the widest room for discussion, the narrowest range for its restriction.''') (quoting Thomas v. Collins~ 323 U.S. 516 (1945)). The City cannot provide a forum to people whose choice of topic it finds acceptable, but deny that forum to less favored or less flattering topics, such as criticism of city government. Goward at 465 (citing City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (U.S. 1984)), As a result, in our opinion the City ofRoseville should carefully consider the implications of any thought to amend the current City Code to prohibit residents from displaying the Save Roseville signs on residential property, CONCLUSION The Save Roseville signs are legally displayed under the current Roseville City Code. Each resident can display one noncommercial sign on his or her property during non-election times. Any attempt to prohibit the signs by amending the ordinance would present First Amendment concerns.