Update to the Normal Sign Ordinance story

By:  Diane Benjamin

See the original story – it was a guest editorial:  https://blnnews.com/2019/05/16/guest-editorial-normal-needs-to-explain/

It turns out the writer was correct – those “Welcoming Signs” violate the Town code.

WGLT has a story quoting Chris Koos claiming the City code needs changed:  https://www.wglt.org/post/koos-neighbor-signs-may-violate-town-code-0

It gets better!

The story links a unanimous (!) Supreme Court case about signs.  Excerpts from that article:    https://www.npr.org/2015/06/18/415537224/justices-give-officials-more-say-on-cars-plates-less-on-roadside-signs

supreme court signsnormal sign code

If Normal wants this sign made legal in their City code, then ALL signs must be made legal:


Banning a sign like this one would violate the law:

secure our border.jpg


Normal needs to decide if no signs should be allowed or all signs.







11 thoughts on “Update to the Normal Sign Ordinance story

  1. The sign in question seems to be making a political statement. Could it be construed as a political sign and be subject to the same rules as a “Vote for Koos” sign ? But even then we have begun to skate into the thin ice arena known as “Freedom of Speech”.


    1. You can certainly advise him the sign is against local ordinance, but ‘needs to remove’ it is pretty strong since 1) the town won’t enforce the ordinance against those signs, 2) the ordinance is probably unconstitutional anyway, and 3) it sounds like the ordinance will be changing soon.


  2. Looks like Bloomington has a 45 day limit for temporary signs. There are some which have been up for far longer than that. City needs to police this, too.

    From the City Code
    Chapter 3 : Section 8.2
    (s) Temporary Signs. Temporary signs not exceeding four (4) square feet in area pertaining to drives or events of civic, philanthropic, educational or religious organizations, provided that said signs are posted only during said drive or no more than thirty (30) days before said event and are removed no more than fifteen (15) days after an event.


    1. They were removed from numbered state routes only due to some arcane state regulation. I’d reckon UofI got to skate on the same regulation.


  3. here’s my question: who paid for the signs? who paid the workers to put up the signs? who paid for the workers to make the sign? if it was city workers used and the signs were paid for by taxpayers then the taxpayers have a right to demand the removal of the signs. i would also think this would be illegal use of taxpayer monies wouldnt it?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s