October 11, 2007
YOUR NAME HERE
YOUR STREET ADDRESS HERE
YOUR CITY, STATE & ZIP CODE HERE
Kari Barker
Associate Planner
City of Hastings
101 4th Street East
Hastings, MN 55033
To Whom It May Concern:
I was recently given a notice that I may not display a non-commercial sign on my own property because doing so violated a non-specified section of the City of Hastings’ Code. I believe that I have located the applicable code section on my own, and believe that the code – both facially and as applied against me – violates both the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied against state and local governments via the 14th Amendment) and Article I, § 3 of the Minnesota Constitution (“The liberty of the press shall forever remain inviolate, and all persons may freely speak, write and publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right.”).
The following is the relevant language of the Hastings Code § 155.08(C) (governing signs that do not require permits):
(C) Signs permitted without a permit.
***
(3) Election/campaign signs on private property provided the signs are posted no sooner than 100 days before a city, school, county, state, or federal election and removed within 10 days following an election. No election signs shall be affixed to utility poles;
(4) Real estate, lease, and rental signs not more than 15 square feet for residentially zoned property and 32 square feet for non-residentially zoned property provided only 1 sign per street frontage upon which the property to be sold or leased abuts[.]
Could you please explain to me how § 155.08, which provides greater rights for commercial speech (real estate signs) than political speech, is distinguishable from similar ordinances held unconstitutional in the following cases?
In
Whitton v. City of Gladstone, Mo., 54 F. 3d 1400 (8th Cir. 1995), the 8th Circuit addressed an ordinance that restricted the display of political campaign signs on private property to no earlier than 30 days before an election and no later than 7 days after an election. Other types of signs were allowed to remain on display without such temporal restrictions. The Court held that the ordinance violated the 1st Amendment because it was not “content neutral” and could not, therefore, survive the “strict scrutiny” standard required for such a content-based restriction.
In
Goward v. City of Minneapolis, 456 N.W. 2d 460 (1990), the Minnesota Court of Appeals struck down a city ordinance that allowed the display of “for sale” and “for rent” signs on private property while placing different restrictions on non-commercial opinion signs. The Court based its decision on its finding that the regulations were not “content neutral” time, place, and manner restrictions, and were, therefore, invalid under the 1st Amendment.
Please provide written confirmation, by 5 p.m. on October 12, 2007, that you will not take any enforcement action against me, and that my sign may remain on display or I will be forced to seek relief in federal court.
Sincerely,
YOUR NAME HERE
cc: John Hinzman, Planning Director
Dave Osberg, City Administrator
Shawn Moynihan, City Attorney
