Title
Ordinance amending Title 14-503, 504, and 507 of the Crossville Code of Ordinances
Body
SUMMARY: Due to court rulings, it has been determined that the City of Crossville's sign ordinance is invalid and cannot be enforced. A moratorium on sign permits is requested to allow the sign ordinance to be brought up to current standards according to the law.
The City of Crossville's current definition of a business sign or on-premise sign is "a sign which advertises the business or other activity conducted on or principal products sold on the property upon which the sign is located." This verbiage is considered to be content specific and unconstitutional. The City must define this by location only. If a City official has to read the sign to determine it is on-premise, then the regulation is not legal. This is also the case for outdoor advertising sign or off-premise sign which is defined as, "intended or used to advertise or inform or otherwise directs attention to a business, commodity, service or activity generally conducted, sold or primarily offered elsewhere than upon the premises where the sign is located." If a City official is required to read the sign to determine it is off-premise, then the regulation is not legal. Attached is an article that summarizes Reed v. Town of Gilbert. This is the case that brought about changes regarding content.
Attached also is the 2017 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that involved TDOT's sign regulations. The court found the state regulations to be unconstitutional as they were based on content. The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment permits restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas, including obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, and speech integral to criminal conduct.
It is important to note that the City can still regulate content that is obviously offensive. The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment permits restrictions upon the content of...
Click here for full text