Palm Coast government is working toward loosening its sign ordinance. City officials say it is doing so to comply with a 2015 Supreme Court decision and avoid costly litigation.
A proposed rewriting of the ordinance would not change the look of the city markedly, preserving most of the restrictions in place now. But a draft ordinance–still very much a work in progress–will err on the more permissive than restrictive side, now that local governments are largely (but not entirely) barred from regulating what signs say.
Homeowners will get to express themselves more freely. They’ll be allowed to plant up to six free-expression signs in their yards, and not just at election time. They’ll be allowed to plant three flag poles, not just two, raising more flags–including Confederate and other hate symbols or, in an already coarser climate, more explicit versions of the Brandon variety.
The city worked closely with the Flagler County Realtors Association on the re-write, accepting some recommendations and rejecting others. (See that list here.) Realtors will be happier, but not as happy as they wish they could be. They and other home-sellers will be allowed to plant two, not just one, For Sale sign on lots or in front of homes, thus allowing corner lots to have more marketability, or to plant two signs on private property, directing people to open houses.
Realtors and businesses will also have somewhat looser regulations in commercial zones. In commercial zones, businesses currently limited to one non-commercial sign on their property will be allowed to have up to four signs of varying size, depending on the square footage of acreage of the business. Commercial properties for sale will also be allowed to have two signs instead of one.
Realtors wanted the ban on signs in rights-of-way to be removed. The city administration is not budging on that this time anymore than it did two years ago, when the issue was last brought up. But the council two years ago had no Realtors on it. Now, 40 percent of its membership is made up of Realtors, including the mayor. That plus Ed Danko, the council member who attempted to loosen right-of-way bans two years ago, would give that proposal a majority.
But it might draw pushback–if not from residents, then from the city’s legal minds: opening rights of way to real estate signs means opening rights of way to all signs–political, ideological, religious, hate-filled, even commercial, since real estate signs are a sell. Any form of regulation would be a slippery slope opening the city to the risk of a lawsuit. Nix noted that by the time the 2015 Supreme Court decision was through, attorneys’ fees had risen to around $1 million. NO city wants to risk that.
While the law forbids governments to control expression on signs, or to treat Realtors’ signs differently from political or religious signs, it still allows governments to regulate the place, the time and the manner in which signs are displayed. That means a city may forbid all commercial or private signs on public property, as Palm Coast does now. A city may regulate the size and manner in
which signs are displayed. That means it may forbid all electronic signs, or all billboards, or require all signs identifying a shop to be no larger than a set size.
And it may regulate the time when signs are displayed, as long as the regulation applies uniformly. So if a government could previously require that political signs be limited to a particular season, while allowing church or Realtors’ or open house signs to be displayed all year, it may not do so anymore: that would be content discrimination. “Everyone needs to be treated the same as far as what the sign says,” City Attorney Jennifer Nix said.
“The majority of the changes you see are based on federal law reclassifying and categorizing signs,” Ray Tyner, the city’s planning.
The city’s planning board got a 75-minute tutorial from Nix and City Planner Estelle Lens at a special workshop on Wednesday. The City Council will hold a workshop of its own on the proposal on Nov. 14. The next day, the planning board will formally consider the proposed ordinance and issue a recommendation to the City Council. And the council will vote on the ordinance in a pair of hearings on Dec. 5 and Dec. 19. In the meantime, residents and others will have occasion to weigh in–should the issue draw much attention. While it will affect every resident and every business in town, it will not necessarily generate proportionate attention or concern, not least because the ordinance’s intricacies in its details.
In the main, however, the ordinance is not complicated, nor is its genesis.
Palm Coast’s sign code was first approved in 2008 as part of the city’s first comprehensive plan. “We’ve had a lot of complaints from 2009 to about 2012 from the development community,” Tyner said. The code was re-written. Complaints stopped. Then came the Supreme court’s Reed v. Gilbert decision in 2015.
The case was about a church’s directional signs in Gilbert, Arizona, where Clyde Reed and Good News Community Church were planting temporary signs to direct people to services. Gilbert’s sign ordinance imposed different size restrictions on signs, depending on whether they were political, ideological, religious or directional. The town didn’t explain why some signs could be 6 feet high while others could be 20.
“Good News Community Church’s temporary signs promoting church services receive far worse treatment than temporary signs promoting political, ideological, and various other messages, even though they equally impact Gilbert’s interests in safety and aesthetics,” the church’s petition to the court summarized.
The court ruled that Gilbert’s ordinance was unconstitutional because size restrictions based on content are a form of judgment about that content. “Content-based laws — those that target speech based on its communicative content — are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.
The court was unanimous on the illegality of distinctions, but it split, 6-3, on the rationale to get there, with Justice Elena Kagan finding the approach too sweeping and at risk of endangering innumerable, reasonable ordinances. She was right to the extent that the decision required a rewriting of local ordinances across the country, including in Palm Coast, though it’s taken the city quite a few years to get there.
Why so long? Because Mayor David Alfin spurred the move for another look.
Nix summed up the meaning of the law as it stands: “If you do have to read the sign, it makes it a content-based regulation.” (That is, if you’re a government regulator and you have to read it to decide how to treat it, it makes it content-based.) That’s not entirely disallowed. But if the government goes that route, “it has to be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. That’s pretty hard to do, it’s a very high standard,” because it has to meet and clear what the court calls “strict scrutiny” under that standard.
In an analysis of the Gilbert decision, Adam Liptak, the New York Times reporter, explained what Nix told the planning boards in language that has been quoted incessantly since: “Strict scrutiny requires the government to prove that the challenged law is ‘narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.’ You can stare at those words as long as you like, but here is what you need to know: Strict scrutiny, like a Civil War stomach wound, is generally fatal.”
Commercial signs may be regulated more restrictively, but equality standards still apply. For example, the hospital could not be allowed to have an electronic sign while other businesses are denied. The old convention that enormously tall pole signs at highway interchanges could be allowed there but not elsewhere is also no longer tenable.
In the city’s view, it’s best to reduce all signs to three categories: temporary versus permanent, onsite versus offsite(for example, a sign on a business property about that business is onsite, a sign about that business on a right of way somewhere else is offsite), commercial versus non-commercial. “Slicing and dicing of sign categories will lead to litigation,” the city finds.
The city cannot allow only American or government flags. If a person wants to fly the Confederate flag, a swastika flag or a hammer and sickle flag, those must be allowed. Alternately, it could ban flagpoles, but the ban would have to apply citywide. (Homeowner associations may have stricter rules.)
That doesn’t mean that the government itself may not reject hate symbols: the same year that the Supreme Court adopted the Gilbert decision, it also ruled that government could reject specialty license plates bearing the Confederate flag, because the license plate, being government-issued, speaks for the government as a whole. But it was a 5-4 decision that hinged on a thin, and since vanished, liberal majority (with Thomas, who wrote Gilbert, in the majority).
And license plates are issued by the government. Flag poles and signs on private property are not, so government could not impose hate-speech restrictions there. Still, that’s not yet very clear in the ordinance, which doesn’t even mention the word “hate” because it can be subjective. What is clear is that a line in the existing ordinance under prohibitions–“Signs containing statements, words, or pictures of an obscene nature”–is removed in the proposed ordinance.
Currently the city handles obscene signs on a case-by-case basis. “It is very delicate,” Tyner said. “Each one of these signs I know we take to our city attorney to make sure we are following the federal regulations. Each one is unique and different.”
d
Jan says
Oh NOOOOOOOOOOO – not more signs!
John says
Alfin rides again, now he and his realtor buddies are free to post more sales signs, he sure is changing thinks to benefit himself and his realtor friends. He sure isn’t hiding it either.
The dude says
What about our hard working, self employed, tax paying neighbors who run their own businesses and might have a work vehicle they’d like to not pay storage for?
Dennis C Rathsam says
Stuff em in Alvin, how sorry are you for voting for this shallow man? Seems theirs an agenda, thats hidden under the radar. Lets make Palm Coast the slum that its turning out to be. Code is useless, so many violations after midnight….Swale parking, illegal trucks in the driveway…what the hell, Lets put signs all over the real problem….. Is there an adult in the room? Na he,s to busy printing up signs!
jeffery c. seib says
What a mess! How can we allow the real estate and builders to control everything here? They write the rules with their city staff lackeys shuffling them through the process. The lots are not big enough for this. They want a slopped-up city so they can degrade it even more when nobody cares anymore. We need a level of beatification in all our neighborhoods. It’s medically proven to reduce stress and calm nerves. Nazi flags, lawn signs, and the rest of the junk all over the place will help to drag us down to a level of a second-rate city.
Not the hypocrite says
Im sure that also means that people can put up as many pride flags, keep abortion legal signs and the no one is illegal signs. What is the point of this one sided article? To continue the divided or to continue to people in this town on edge by making the believe that their neighbor it’s hateful with no proof however.
Pat F says
This possibility is disgusting.
Trying to protect from vulgar profanity in signs is going to be more difficult.
The self-serving mayor has yet to earn his raise with another ridiculous idea for the fine citizens of Palm Coast!
JimboXYZ says
Contractors have always been able to post signs for homes under contract for either an improvement project or outright sale. I think the real estate open house or for sale signs are a thing of the past anyway. It’s all done thru one of the internet real estate inventory searches really. If one is driving around looking for those signs, they’re probably wasting their time with a property that is a stale listing. They also would still need to hit up Zillow or whatever inventory search engine to contact the realtor anyway for a showing.
Concerned Citizen says
Let’s revisit the ordinance about marked vehicles then.
Why do I bring this up? A sign is a sign whether on a vehicle or not. And for those of us who obey and have to make an extra trip to an office 40 min away. It would make life a lot easier. Does it really make a difference in your property values to inconvenience your AC guy? Who worked on your unit past 7PM? Then has to drive a half hour to put his van away? Then drive back home? I mean I can ride around any community. And spot a number of Realty magnets still on cars. What’s fair is fair. :)
The Sour Kraut says
Originally from south Florida where signs are everywhere, and not maintained, nor disposed of when no longer useful. Not looking forward to seeing Palm Coast going down that path. Already we have realtor signs, roofing signs, religious signs, etc. Who needs a bunch of signs to sell a house? There is this cool new thing called the internet where most people find new homes. Where in the budget will they find the money to have “sign police “?
Greg says
That will help beautify a city that is already in decline.
Robert Joseph Fortier says
Signs, signs…everywhere a sign…do this don’t do that, can’t you read the signs???
Laurel says
Dude: My friend was an animal control officer, and her husband a police officer in Boca Raton. They lived in a townhouse subdivision. Guess who was allowed to park the work vehicle there, and who was not, though both were government vehicles.
Laurel says
OMG, people really have nothing to do. The get an idea, let’s mark it as “!” but they never look beyond !, or around !, or behind !. Very short sighted these days.
If I remember correctly, Boca Raton was one of the first cities to regulate signs. They had very specific sizes, colors and placement. Then, many cities started copying that for the simple reason it made the city look better. There was on sign, however, that got a lot of complaints. It was a sign for a restaurant that was white, with a stylistic red antelope skull on it. Rather cool looking. The complaint was, and I’m not making this up, was that the sign had a “sheen.” I kid you not. So, you can never make everyone happy. But, the signage ordinance made most people happy. For a reversal seems counterintuitive.
I see no need for two real estate signs in one yard, that’s overkill. When that starts, the signage wars begin. They have to get bolder, bigger, more in your face to complete. Next thing, you’ve got Commercial Blvd in Ft. Lauderdale. In your face, in your face, in your face obnoxiousness. Definitely a downgrade to the area. Real estate people are a stitch, aren’t they?
I am against signage in the right of ways for the simple reason that they are dangerous. They often block the view of people trying to pull out onto the road. That’s a no.
Afin has to go..... says
Afin has to go. I wouldn’t vote for this guy ever again. I voted for him to be Mayor but we are in a steep decline.
Alfin doesn’t deserve any further consideration for office.
Wow says
In other words, we can’t park cans with business signs because it looks low class, but it’s fine to have a F@ck Biden sign.
Workers can’t have a business sign on the van but business owners are free from restrictions?
Hypocrites much?
Edith Campins says
This will just make our once lovely city downright ugly. It will become a competition to see who can have the bigger, uglier sign. As for those complaining about the comercial vehicle ordinance…look around in communities that allow it. Not pretty is it? Anyone remember the trump supporter truck with the foul, vulgar, obscenties all over it? How would you like that parked next to your house? Those of us who did our due diligence, bought homes in a RESIDENTIAL neighborhood. And yes, real estate agents will admit that having ugly commercial vehicles next to your nice green lawn will detract from the value of your home. However, it won’t help decrease your property taxes.
TR says
With all do respect, no one here lives in Boca Raton. Why is it there are always things have to be compared to other places. IMO no city council or residence should compare the place they live to other places. I personally don’t care what is going on in any other city except Palm Coast until I move. Then the new area I decide to move to, I will do my due diligence to see what it’s like to live there. But until then, who cares what happens in other cities pertaining to the rules.
TR says
This is going to cause so many problems it’s going to be ridicules. Just read some of the comments above. The only one I agree with is to allow two realtor signs (if the realtor wants to use them) on a property that is for sale and the house is on a corner lot. One sign in the front yard and one one the side where the side street is.
Kevin says
It’s bad enough our phones are deluged with pop up ads. Now we have to drive through it!
CELIA PUGLIESE says
I totally agree with Wow, Laurel, Sour, Robert, our city residents speaker Mr. Jeffrey Seib and most above, this is a Federal Law change that we will need to carefully craft into an ordinance just only if needed to comply, as some signs are very detrimental to eye nuisance and injurious in our landscape and also to the marketing of a house for sale deteriorating its value of uninterested buyers over the display across the street or nearby neighbors of hate and profane political signs. Who may want to buy a house there specially a family with children? I consider those crass displays an abuse and misinterpretation of our First Amendment and hope the Supreme Court weighs on hate signs appropriately! If ain’t broke (in Palm Coast} please don’t fix it!
jeffery c. seib says
…and I jumped on the fence and yelled to the house, what gives you the right?
ban the GOP says
look at the party in charge here in Florida. Id expect to see more swastikas and rebel flags. spread misinformation and hate its the republican way.
Sherry says
@tr. . . Wow! you do understand that everything is relative, and that we should be learning from our collective experiences, correct? Geeeeez!
Laurel says
TR: Feel better now?
Laurel says
One of the dumbest songs out there, imo.
Laurel says
TR: Or, one sign could go on the corner…
Laurel says
The problem, as I see it these days, is “freedom of speech.” Now, you and I have been around awhile, and didn’t we already know what freedom of speech was? Yep, we did. A person could say anything they wanted, but there might be consequences. For instance, I can say “McDonald’s poisons people.” I can say it, but McDonald’s has the right to sue me over defamation, so it would behoove me to think twice about what I say. What we have all agreed on, is I cannot yell “fire” in a theater if it isn’t so. People could be trampled to death.
Now, all of a sudden, the very youthful, on social media, feel the need to define it as if it’s a brand new thing. They just discovered it. Then, it’s being followed up by those who have issues with “cancel culture.” Then, it becomes “woke.” Then, everyone has to chime in. Now it’s in court every time we turn around. Now it’s the clothes we wear. Now it’s our tattoos. And now, it’s real estate signs.
Paleeeeezze! Can we all just take it down a few dozen notches? You can say whatever you want, but there may be consequences.
Mirabelle Watkins says
There’s an AC truck parked in a driveway on Luther every day/night and no one’s ever said anything. Been there for more than a year. It’s like the second or third house in on the left. I don’t think they’re really enforcing the truck thing.
Robert Roeck says
Agree! The Joe Biden of Palm Coast, single handily destroying our once beautiful city with every day he and his cronies stay in office. Got to go Alfin!