[New post] WA Appeals Court Upholds Restriction on Commercial Sign Sizes Designed to Address Aesthetics and Traffic Control

WordPress.com
  
Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Bachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO ConsultantCTAC LEED CertificationThe Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners*630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A, Number 702
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 CellWebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com Resume: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/ CURRICULUMVITAENAME2011a.pdfCommercial Appraiser Blog: http://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/ We Make a Simple Pledge to

Communicate, in a timely fashion, each appraisal, analysis, and opinion without bias or partiality

Abstain from behavior that is deleterious to our clients, the appraisal profession, and the public

Hold paramount the confidential nature of the appraiser/consultant - client relationship

and

Comply with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the
Code of Professional Ethics of the National Society of Real Estate Appraisers
IT'S THE LAW- Statement 7: Prohibition Against Discrimination
State agencies should be aware that Title XI and the Agencies' regulations prohibit federally regulated financial institutions from excluding appraisers from consideration for an assignment by virtue of their membership, or lack of membership, in any appraisal organization. Federally regulated financial institutions should review the qualifications of appraisers to ensure that they are qualified for the assignment for which they are being considered. It is unacceptable to assume that an appraiser is qualified solely due to membership in, or designation from, an appraisal organization, or the lack thereof. The Agencies have determined that financial institutions' appraisal policies should not favor appraisers from one or more organizations or exclude individuals based on their lack of such membership. If a State agency learns that a certified or licensed appraiser allegedly has been a victim of such discrimination, the State agency should inform the Agency which has regulatory authority over the involved financial institution. INCLUDING THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE-MAICONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal
 
From: LAW OF THE LAND [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:01 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [New post] WA Appeals Court Upholds Restriction on Commercial Sign Sizes Designed to Address Aesthetics and Traffic Control

 

 New post on LAW OF THE LAND WA Appeals Court Upholds Restriction on Commercial Sign Sizes Designed to Address Aesthetics and Traffic Controlby Patricia Salkin
Catsiff opened an Octopus toy store on E. Main Street and painted a wall sign depicting an octopus hiding behind a rainbow over the rear entrance and a similar design on the store front, neither of which he obtained a permit for. The sign violated city’s regulations for height and width limits. Catsiff was issued a notice of violation. Although he concedes the violation, he claims the regulations were unconstitutional as a violation of his free speech rights.The WA Court of Appeals determined that the restriction was commercial in nature since the purposes of Catsiff’s signs were economic and involved speech that proposed a commercial transaction. As such, the burden of justifying the restrictions is placed upon the government to show they are narrowly tailored to serve a substantial state interest.While signs are a form of expression protected by the free speech clause, they pose problems that are subject to municipalities’ police powers. Based upon prior case law developed by the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Ladue v. Gilleo and by the State supreme court in Collier v. City of Tacoma, restrictions upon the noncommunicative aspects of signs must be: 1)content neutral; 2) reasonable; and 3)supported by a legitimate regulatory interest.Regarding content neutrality, restrictions are content neutral if they do not regulate on the basis of viewpoint. Here, the sign size and height restrictions do not limit what an owner may say or what a sign may depict.Regarding reasonableness, the means chosen need to not be the least restrictive means, but must be reasonable. Case law has determined that there must be a reasonable fit between the legislature’s ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends. The city carefully considered its size and height restrictions; a building improvement guide was commissioned and taken into consideration.The final aspect, having a legitimate regulatory interest requires a compelling interest for regulation. Previously, the court in State v. Lotze found that aesthetics and traffic safety are compelling state interests. Catsiff argues that the sign code purpose section nowhere uses the words “aesthetics” or “traffic safety.” Despite the lack of the express language, the Court of Appeals determined that by discussing “visual clutter” in the purpose as well as providing legislative history supporting traffic safety concerns, the sign code manifests a legitimate interest.Catsiff’s additional claim is that the ordinances are unconstitutionally vague since the term “sign” is itself vague. However, this claim was unsupported since the sign code specifically defines a “wall sign” in detail, listing its characteristics, and no danger exists that a citizen could mistake other surfaces as being regulated by the code.Catsiff also contended that the size and height restrictions are constitutionally overbroad, because they reach noncommercial speech as well as commercial. In this instance, the ordinances regulate advertising to protect aesthetics and promote traffic safety, therefore they do not reach constitutionally protected speech.Finally, Catsiff’s claim that the sign-permit requirement is an invidious prior restraint is not at issue since he did not exhaust his administrative remedies by taking the administrative appeal option he was provided with.Catsiff v. McCarty, 274 P.3d 1063 (WA Ct of App 4/12/2012)The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=304221MAJ
Patricia Salkin | June 27, 2012 at 1:00 am | Categories: Current Caselaw, first amendment, Signs | URL: http://wp.me/p64kE-1I1
Comment See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/wa-appeals-court-upholds-restriction-on-commercial-sign-sizes-designed-to-address-aesthetics-and-traffic-control/  

 
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com