Let the screaming begin - Scottsdale is updating its sign ordinance

relating to political signs and is holding two open houses on the topic next week.

Quoting from the press release on the City of Scottsdale website (emphasis added):

At the City Council’s direction, draft amendments to the sign code are being prepared that would prohibit temporary signs, such as political campaign signs, from being placed on public property and in public rights-of-way. The proposed revisions would also restrict the location and size of temporary signs placed on private property.

The current City sign ordinance allows signs in public rights-of-way and doesn't address political signs on private property at all.

The applicable section of the current ordinance:

Sec. 8.607. Political signs.

A. Political signs shall be temporary signs that are limited to a period of one-hundred twenty days. The maximum area of such sign shall be sixteen (16) square feet. If placed behind a dedicated scenic corridor easement, such sign shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet.

B. The maximum height of such sign shall be ten (10) feet.

C. The person, party, or parties responsible for the erection or distribution of any political signs shall submit to the city a map showing all sign locations along with contact information of the party or parties who shall be jointly and severally liable for their removal.

D. No sign permit shall be required for such sign. An encroachment permit shall be required pursuant to Section 8.312.III and Section 47-101 of the Scottsdale Revised Code for political signs placed in the right-of-way.

(Ord. No. 2260, § 2, 7-18-89; Ord. No. 3515, § 1, 6-17-03)

The tentative schedule for the changes calls for the Planning Commission to address the issue in January, with the changes reaching the City Council in March.

What little research that I've done on this topic indicates that the City is on shaky ground here - they might get away with prohibiting signs on public property, but are very limited as to what they can do to restrict political speech on private property.

In almost every case where such an ordinance has been challenged, the municipality has lost. Usually at great cost to the taxpayers, who end up footing the bill for the plaintiff's legal costs as well as the city's cost for defending the ordinance.

The open houses should be interesting. I fully expect to hear the words "visual pollution" or "aesthetics" as part of the justification for a stricter ordinance; while such considerations may appeal to the tender sensibilities of the Mayor and City Council, those justifications will all but guarantee that at least part of the ordinance will be deemed to be unconstitutional during the inevitable legal challenge.

The open house schedule:

4:30 to 7 p.m. Dec. 6 at the City's Water Campus, 8787 E. Hualapai Drive

4:30 to 7 p.m. Dec. 7 in Room 8 of the Granite Reef Senior Center, 1700 N. Granite Reef Road

Right now, my plan is to attend the December 7th open house; I'll try to attend both, though.

More info on this subject:

FirstAmendmentCenter overview

FirstAmendmentCenter case

Iowa League of Cities info page

Connecticut Association of Municipal Attorneys Municipal Law Highlights - 2004, section I.