Over the years, I have been outspoken at cities’ absurd ordinances to control signs — especially the double standards of allowing ostentatious signs for commercial interests but being dastardly stingy with smaller interests.  The sign policy makers and policers like to say they are helping the ambiance of communities as they begrudgingly allow for signs too small to be seen or read by drivers.

Signs, historically and traditionally, have been integral to community communications.  My own city of Tempe, at one time, used to pride itself on ordering business signs to be small, sterile and anything but user-friendly.  In recent years, they allowed for greater size and display — although the city of Tempe has no feet to stand on when one sees the huge signs of Tempe Marketplace from the Red Mountain Freeway  or the area along  I-10 corridor in south Tempe  that includes IKEA signs.

So I was thrilled to see a court ruling Friday that came down on the side of Good News Community Church in Gilbert in its fight with the Town of Gilbert. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Court ruled that the federal court should have considered Gilbert’s sign ordinance unconstitutionally discriminates against religious signs among all non-commercial signs. With that decision, the 9th Circuit sent the case back to the district court for a decision.  The church has been defended by Scottsdale-based Alliance Defense Fund.

ADF’s senior legal counsel David Cortman had argued the case before the 9th Circuit Court on April 15. He said, “Churches shouldn’t be discriminated against by a city’s sign ordinances.  The goverment cannot require churches to abide by stricter rules than it places on other non-commercial signs.” Further, Cortman said, “The Constitution prohibits government officials from singling out religious groups for that kind of discrimination.”

Here’s a line from the 9th court’s ruling in the case of Reed v. Town of Gilbert: “Gilbert has adopted a sign ordinance that makes one’s head spin to figure out the bounds of its restrictions and exemptions.”  When ADF filed its lawsuit against the city in 2007,  the Town of Gilbert agreed to a preliminary injunction prohibiting it from enforcing its sign code against Good News.  Gilbert’s code required church have signs smaller in size, fewer in number and put on display for less time than comparable non-religious signs.  Even when the town amended it code, such discrimination against churches continued, the ADF said.  A quest to enjoin the town failed and ADF attorneys appealed to the 9th Circuit.

It is now up to the district court to consider such discrimination in Good News’ challenge within the context of  a preliminary injunction motion.

Certainly, cities and neighborhoods can be especially unfriendly to faith communities, especially when enough of the residents have a bone to pick against a particular religion or its theology.  It is not hard to develop a list of reasons why they don’t belong, using  the traditional NIMBY approach.  The not-in-my-backyard people have squelched countless worthy efforts.  That faith organizations don’t have a lot of resources for expensive permits and signage  is obvious.   Nascent congregations often use A-frame signs to catch the eyes of drivers and direct them to store-front meeting places or homes.  How can that bring deterioration to a neighborhood, especially when compared to all the garage sale signs that come in every form and description?

Posted in: Uncategorized |

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.