First of all, I want to thank the City Council and Staff for listening to WeMAR, business owners, property owners and residents. The consequences of the February 2017 vote to revert to the 2009 sign ordinance has been broad, all-encompassing and for some, devastating.
We appreciate the City taking this opportunity to “road test” some provisions of a temporary sign ordinance while working on the larger ordinance. We do have a few concerns:
The phrase “vulgar or profane messages, hate speech, or language intended to incite violence” contained in Exhibit A and Section 6. We are concerned this broad and subjective phrase violates the first Amendment and could lead to arbitrary enforcement, particularly in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Snyder v. Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church case of 2011.
We see no problems with limiting signage in the visual triangles. In fact, this provision may help clear corners of unmanageable numbers of signs.
We are concerned with the size notated in Class I temporary signs. This is an example of a typical A-Frame sign used for open house direction and on property to indicate a house is open. It is designed to hold a sign up to 18”x24”. As a result, the frame is 28 ½” by 31”. We would ask the City increase the sign size slightly to accommodate this size sign frequently used be REALTORS.
We are still concerned for residents who wish to display a “Welcome Home”, “Just Graduated”, “It’s a Boy/Girl”, Blue Star, Gold Star or other banner to express joy, sorrow or pride. We believe they should be able to express themselves.
Section 8 deals with violation and enforcement. We have noted a person in violation may be charged with a civil or criminal violation, and we still maintain criminal prosecution of a sign ordinance is over zealous.
We also note that owners of temporary signs in violation with the ordinance will not receive a Notice of Violation under Section 8, C6. Even more concerning is Section 8, E. In which the City provides for signs taken to be discarded after 5 business days. We have noted in the past, and still maintain this is a violation of due process and results in a government taking without compensation. We are even more convinced this is a due process violation in view of the Arizona Supreme Court decision of May 2017 in Horne v. Polk.
We ask that temporary sign owners be given notice so that they may resolve the issue, and that provision of due process be honored prior to the City destroying property.