"Lawspuit filed against Coppell (TX) over sign ordinace"
A lawsuit has been filed in federal court by an apartment complex in Coppell (TX) over what has been referred to as violation of free speech. Reading betwen the lines, it appears this apartment complex has been one of the flagrant violators of city ordinance and state law by plalcing their signs in the median strip of a state maintained highway. If this is in fact the case, just wonder how far it will go before being thrown out of court.
It hasn't been that long since a very similar case was brought by a land owner for placing a controversial billboard on his private property, which was too close to a state and federal highway. He lost the suit because of state and federal law as defined by HBA 65 and previous rulings on first amendment rights by the US Supreme Court.
#1. "RE: Lawspuit filed against Coppell (TX) over sign ordinace" In response to Reply # 0
>A lawsuit has been filed in federal court by an apartment >complex in Coppell (TX) over what has been referred to as >violation of free speech. >Reading betwen the lines, it appears this apartment complex >has been one of the flagrant violators of city ordinance and >state law by plalcing their signs in the median strip of a >state maintained highway.
Sheesh. They're whining because they can't place signs on property that they don't even own? Where's John "Give me a Break!" Stossel when you need him?
I especially like the bit about how the apartment complex "will continue to be unable to legally market its product." Maybe they should get a new marketing department, with folks who know about television, radio, and newspaper advertising.
#2. "RE: Lawspuit filed against Coppell (TX) over sign ordinace" In response to Reply # 1
>I especially like the bit about how the apartment complex >"will continue to be unable to legally market its product." >Maybe they should get a new marketing department, with folks >who know about television, radio, and newspaper advertising.
>Frank >
Yeah, tell me about it. What's really going to be funny is when they run head on into past rulings from the state regarding local ordinaces right up to the Supreme Court's past written opinions on First Amendment Rights as it pertains to commercial free speech.
#3. "RE: Lawspuit filed against Coppell (TX) over sign ordinace" In response to Reply # 0
The article is rather confusing as it references both on-premise and off-premise temporary signs. It sounds like the gripe is that "others" (other types of housing units??) can post signs in certain places but apartment complexes cannot. Coppell does have a unique (as far as I know) ordinance that allows "civic" organizations to put signs in the public right of way. Perhaps it is this that is being considered content discrimination. In any case, the article probably states the issues very poorly so it is hard to tell. Maybe there is an easy way to read the actual filing online.
#4. "RE: Lawspuit filed against Coppell (TX) over sign ordinace" In response to Reply # 0
Take a look at the Coppell web site located at: http://www.ci.coppell.tx.us/ then click on Temporay Sign Enforcement.
I personally don't see where the problem lies. To me, it's very straight forward and written in comprehensible US Standard English.
Agreed, the NW DMN News reporter leaves a lot to be desired in some of his reporting. I would say he left out at least two and maybe three of the 5W's, a serious cardinal sin in reporting according to Edward R. Murrell.
Based on what I've personally seen in the past, the folks that filed the suit, are flagrant violators. Coppell has been very lenient up to this point and as always, the violators have pushed beyond a reasonable limit. The area in question runs about twenty miles, through three or four municipalities. It is also a very heavily traveled state highway which is federally funded and subject to HBA 65.
Go back about three years and do a search in the TX forum on Condos - Exec Suites - For Lease or Rent along US 121 and it all comes clear. Enough is enough, clean em out, and send them back to whence they came.
#5. "RE: Lawspuit filed against Coppell (TX) over sign ordinace" In response to Reply # 4
>Take a look at the Coppell web site located at: >http://www.ci.coppell.tx.us/ then click on Temporay Sign >Enforcement. > >I personally don't see where the problem lies. To me, it's >very straight forward and written in comprehensible US >Standard English. > It looks like the suit is claiming that rental property zoned "SF, 2F or TH" can put up temporary on-premise signs while rental property with other zoning (i.e., the apartment complex) cannot. Those filing the suit think this is a violation of their rights. That's what courts decide.
Incidently, Coppell has some remarkably complex temporary sign ordinances including signs that are permitted in the ROW.
#6. "RE: Lawspuit filed against Coppell (TX) over sign ordinace" In response to Reply # 5
>It looks like the suit is claiming that rental property >zoned "SF, 2F or TH" can put up <snip> That's what courts decide. > >Incidently, Coppell has some remarkably complex temporary >sign ordinances including signs that are permitted in the >ROW. > >Newbie
Based on what I've heard, rather than what was in the NW DMN, the problem was triggered over signs in the median of SH 121. I think the attorneys are smart enough to figure out that it would be wasted effort to go after the state due to TxDot 393 plus the other laws effecting state road ROW's.
