[ back ]
Free speech supersedes zoning
(by Dave Lange - July 15, 2009)
COUNTY LINE, BY DAVE LANGE
Free speech supersedes zoning
Let me see, freedom of speech or enforcement of zoning rules? What would George Mason and the other founding fathers who insisted on including the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution do? More to the point, what would Burton Township Trustees Louis Mucci and Daniel Whiting do?
The question came up last week when Township Trustees discussed a sign that had been placed in the front yard of a Georgia Road residence. Directed at Geauga County Engineer Robert Phillips, it reads in part, "Wanted: competent county engineer." Apparently, a citizen disagrees with county plans to widen the road, which runs east from Tavern Road and into Middlefield, and with the necessity of removing a certain number of trees in the process.
As the saying goes, you can't fight city hall, or town hall, or the county engineer's office, for that matter. But in America, at least, you can complain about it. That is due to the fact that the first among 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights prohibits the government from abridging citizens' freedom of speech. It is the most fundamental right in the land.
No, the framers of the Bill of Rights did not have real-estate signs in mind when they wrote the First Amendment, although the courts have affirmed property owners' rights to post them in their yards. And the original 13 states did not care about signs advertising bargains on Chinese products at the nearby big-box store or fat-filled burgers at the local fast-food restaurant when they ratified the Bill of Rights. But, of course, even the great American right to exercise such commercial speech is well established.
The one essential reason for the establishment of freedom of speech in the United States was to assure that citizens could criticize their government and their governing officials without retribution.
Some of those governing officials, such as Burton Township's Mr. Mucci, have a good understanding of citizens' rights. But many of them cannot shake the vestiges of British King George III and the notion that government need not tolerate criticism.
In response to the township zoning inspector's interpretation that the sign on Georgia Road is in violation of the township's zoning code, Mr. Mucci referred knowledgeably to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that signs expressing political opinions cannot be infringed upon. He noted that nearby Kirtland lost a court case in which the city attempted to restrict a resident's sign criticizing Lake County officials. He further cautioned that township regulations regarding the duration of political signs probably would be struck down if they were contested in court.
"Just let it die a natural death," Mr. Mucci said of misguided efforts to prohibit the Georgia Road sign after receiving one anonymous telephone complaint.
But his colleague Mr. Whiting declined to do that. In his mind, apparently, zoning supersedes freedom of speech. If the government tolerates this one instance of a citizen's criticism, he reasoned, "The whole township could become polluted with signs like in the political season."
In asking for a review of the issue by the Geauga County Prosecutor's Office, Mr. Whiting noted that the township restricts political signs to 4 square feet at election time.
The prosecutor's office should remind Burton Trustees that their township is part of the United States and that they are not exempt from the First Amendment. They also should be aware that their existing political-sign ordinance would not survive a court challenge.
[ back ]
