By: Diane Benjamin
See PDF page 84. Numerous references were made during the meeting to a recent Supreme Court ruling that made these changes necessary. The documentation however doesn’t reference any Supreme Court ruling. Since Kathleen Lorenz was on Cities 92.9 this morning and stated that reason again, I asked her by email what case she and the Town were talking about. She thought it was Reed vrs Arizona which was decided in 2015. That case is about regulations based on content. If this is the case used to make changes, why did it take 7 years to proposed changes?
There was a sign Supreme Court ruling in April 2022, it had nothing to do with temporary signs: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/20-1029/
This explains the Reed vrs Arizona case: https://www.fosterswift.com/communications-Sign-Regulation-Freedom-of-Speech.html
I can only conclude the Town thinks if all signs are treated equally they can regulate political signs. I have FOID’d the Town for sign complaints which was mentioned as a reason for the proposed changes. Some of what has been proposed by staff obviously violates the Reed case.
Other cases have clearly stated political signs are free speech. The Town knows finding a lawyer to counter whatever gets passed is next to impossible, Normal must want to be ready to squash opposition in the local election early next year.
Circulating petitions starts in September for School Boards and both Bloomington and Normal Councils. Good people are badly needed! For more information email me: [email protected]
Here’s another link with a summary that should scare the Council, Planning Commission , and the Town lawyer – they can be held PERSONALLY liable under the law for violating Free Speech:
2 thoughts on “More on Normal’s sign code changes”
No signs = no customers
How do they think it is a good idea for the economy to do this?
After watching what Normal did to restaurants and now all businesses I would never open a business in Normal.
LikeLiked by 1 person