Opportunity to take on City of Concord...

[SethCohn]

[I think if folks affected were approached by some people interested in helping them, they might be interested in some help in fighting this... Starting with 'distracting protestors' might be a way to point out the absurdity of a ban despite no evidence.  Protesting outside the Supreme Court, out on on Loudon road, _especially_ with some 'electronic signs' (ala Ron Paul Christmas ones?) would be a great way to tell the Chief Justice what a foolish ruling this is.  -- Seth ]

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007711090379

City wins appeal on sign ban
Lawmakers can regulate community's aesthetic
   
By CHELSEA CONABOY
Monitor staff
November 09. 2007 12:36AM

The city has the authority to say businesses can't erect a sign with scrolling or flashing electronic messages, because they might distract drivers or aren't pleasant to look at, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday. The decision marked the city's first major victory in a dispute over electronic messaging signs that involves not just local businesses, but also a large New Hampshire sign manufacturer and a national trade organization.

In April 2006, Merrimack County Superior Court ruled that the city's ban on all signs except those that display time, date and temperature violated the First Amendment by limiting the type of speech displayed. The case was filed by Carlson's Chrysler with financial help from Barlo Signs, a manufacturer based in Hudson, and the International Sign Association.

Carlson's and five other businesses on Loudon Road and Manchester Street erected electronic signs after that ruling and before the city instituted a complete ban. All of them were built by Barlo Signs, Code Administrator Ham Rice said.

Rice and other city officials said yesterday that they will talk with those businesses about whether they will have to remove the signs or change their use of them after the Supreme Court overturned the superior court's decision yesterday.

"Those signs could operate under the old ordinance, which is time, date and temperature only," Rice said.
   
Chief Justice John Broderick wrote that although the speech on the signs may be protected, the city's interest in preserving the character of the community is also important.

"The most effective way to eliminate the problems raised by electronic signs containing commercial advertising is to prohibit them," the ruling said.

The ruling does not mark the end of the city's legal battle over the signs. Naser Jewelers has challenged the city's all-out ban on the signs in federal court, saying the law violates the First Amendment and puts the business at a disadvantage to larger regional chains. That case, one of the first to challenge a straight ban, is pending.

In the Carlson case, the superior court had said that the city showed no evidence that the signs caused traffic accidents or detracted from the aesthetics of an area. Broderick wrote that the city didn't need that evidence but can rely on the best judgment of city officials to promote the welfare of the community.

"Because a message displaying time, date and temperature is short and rudimentary, the city could have reasonably found that such a message is less distracting and thus poses less of a traffic hazard than other messages," Justice James Duggan wrote in a separate but concurring ruling.

City Manager Tom Aspell said the city council might consider changing the ordinance to allow for electronic signs with a limited design, although that could take several months. He said the ruling made it clear that the council has the authority to determine what should or shouldn't be allowed.

"It's not about each company deciding what they're going to do in their own best financial interest," Aspell said. "It's about what the community thinks is right."

Arthur Barlo, owner of Barlo Signs, did not return messages yesterday. Holly Carlson could not be reached for comment. Clark Tomassian, owner of Uno's Car Wash, which has an electronic sign, said he didn't want to comment until he had seen the ruling.

[J’raxis 270145]

I was wondering when this would finally happen. These signs are all over Manchester, especially up and down Elm Street—it's one of the first things I noticed when I moved here, because I never saw anything like them in or around Boston. I'm not surprised someone finally started whining that "there oughta be a law!"

[Ogre]

Chief Justice John Broderick wrote that although the speech on the signs may be protected, the city's interest in preserving the character of the community is also important.

Broderick wrote that the city didn't need that evidence but can rely on the best judgment of city officials to promote the welfare of the community.

"It's about what the community [government] thinks is right."

What a screwed up country.  How can anyone in their right mind suggest we have any sort of freedom when a Chief Justice of a Supreme Court can actually say those things.  In what Constitution does it say, "The right of the community via government to make things look 'nice' is supreme to an individual?"  Where do these communist bastards get off saying that government is allowed to use force to "promote the welfare of the community?"  Man, that is so screwed up.

[Russell Kanning]

I have seen signs like that in NV that were visable for miles .... you mass. guys are used to too much government

[J’raxis 270145]

I have seen signs like that in NV that were visable for miles .... you mass. guys are used to too much government

I'm not a Mass guy anymore.

In Boston they actually require a lot of storefronts to use a specific sign style; this is the best example I can find on Google. Even places like McDonald's or Dunkin' Donuts have to use these gold-on-black signs. (I think they allow the stores to still to use their usual typeface.)

[Porcupine_in_MA]

I'm not a Mass guy anymore.

Bastard! 

In Boston they actually require a lot of storefronts to use a specific sign style; this is the best example I can find on Google. Even places like McDonald's or Dunkin' Donuts have to use these gold-on-black signs. (I think they allow the stores to still to use their usual typeface.)

Its hard to keep track of all the big government, nanny-state nonsense in MA isn't it? 

[J’raxis 270145]

I'm not a Mass guy anymore.

Bastard! 

Get thee hence! If you're worried about not having a job when you get here: I'm actually still working in Boston for the time being, and commuting down there daily; it's not particularly enjoyable but it's doable. There's a commuter bus that goes through Manchester, Nashua, and Concord.

In Boston they actually require a lot of storefronts to use a specific sign style; this is the best example I can find on Google. Even places like McDonald's or Dunkin' Donuts have to use these gold-on-black signs. (I think they allow the stores to still to use their usual typeface.)

Its hard to keep track of all the big government, nanny-state nonsense in MA isn't it? 

Yeah, that's why I wouldn't ever think of opening a business down there.

[Pat McCotter]

The Red Blazer scrolling sign is distracting because it doesn't change fast enough to read all of it before I drive by it!

Seriously, though, if esthetics is a problem we already lost that battle before these signs came into town - look at all the utility wires running everywhere on Manchester street in Concord! And the existing signs - and buildings - are an eyesore!

Damn bureaucrats!

[KBCraig]

Damn automobiles and highways ruin the aesthetic! Back to Mackinac Island and horse power!

  ...whut? You're not that insistent on keeping with 18th Century New England sense of style?

[d_goddard]

look at all the utility wires running everywhere on Manchester street in Concord!

This is a good point.
Under this logic, I would think a citizen could sue for removal of "Your current speed" radar-signs, the unusual and distracting gold dome atop the State House, the confusing "Concord: a Main Street Community" sign on Louden Road just off Exit 14...

[Kat Kanning]

LOL, it'd be funny to make them take one of those signs down.

[Lasse]

Anyone who comes up with fascist legislation and justifies it with 'community' concern should be labelled a communitarian. They don't deserve the less filthy labels of 'progressive', 'socialist' or 'liberal pinko'.

There is no such thing as a 'community', it's an abstract entity, there are only individuals. Any time that worthless word is used it always means government. By the people, for the people, right?

[John]

Under this logic, I would think a citizen could sue for removal of "Your current speed" radar-signs, the unusual and distracting  . . .

I'm thinking ALL of those Police-State style roadside check points/random search/dwi check points/etc./etc./etc/  . . . look rather ugly. Ominously ugly!
Fact is: these are the ugliest signs of all, and they should be banned.

[Fragilityh14]

I  know everytime I see a police station or cop car I think "damn, thats ugly and unappealing"

I wonder if we can ban them.