Sign anarchy: Aftermath of Supreme Court decision opens Pandora’s Box of sign code problems

Candidate signs spring up in Gilbert, where the city lost a fight at the U.S. Supreme Court and now is not enforcing its own rules regulating non-commercial signs. /Photo by Gary Grado, Arizona Capitol Times
Candidate signs spring up in Gilbert, where the city lost a fight at the U.S. Supreme Court and now is not enforcing its own rules regulating non-commercial signs. /Photo by Gary Grado, Arizona Capitol Times

By Hank Stephenson | Arizona Capitol Times

As the political season begins in earnest and campaign signs start to pepper roads around the state, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision is complicating cities’ abilities to regulate other kinds of signs.

The 2015 Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert leaves cities in a difficult position: State law says cities must allow political signs on the public right-of-way for roughly five months surrounding an election. But the Supreme Court says if cities allow political signs on street corners, they must allow other types of signs, too.

Continued:

Share this!

Additional Articles

New home sales post solid gain in March

By NAHB Despite higher interest rates last month, new home sales rose in March due to limited inventory of existing homes. However, the pace of new home sales will be under pressure in April as mortgage rates moved above 7% this

Read More »
News Categories

Get Our Twice Weekly Newsletter!

* indicates required

Rose Law Group pc values “outrageous client service.” We pride ourselves on hyper-responsiveness to our clients’ needs and an extraordinary record of success in achieving our clients’ goals. We know we get results and our list of outstanding clients speaks to the quality of our work.