As a follow up to this post about Huntsville’s moronic painted sign law I sent the following email to all of the city council, the city attorney, two members of the Zoning Administration (including the sign ordinance czar), the Huntsville Times reporter who broke the story, and the paper’s editorial page editor.  We’ll see what happens.

—

I have some serious concerns about sign regulations in Huntsville given the recently renewed enforcement of an archaic, unnecessary law banning paintings on walls of businesses.

According to the Huntsville Times, the city’s “sign enforcement officer,” Johnnie Dodson, was quoted as saying that the city’s code expressly prohibits any paintings on businesses that include the name or product sold.  It is an absolutely inane regulation as explained by Dodson to say the least, but I don’t believe the city is properly interpreting the code.

When I searched the online city code for any pertinent regulations the only one I could find was section 72.5.3, which states, “Signs painted or pasted directly on the structures are expressly prohibited.”  The term “sign” as it applies in the code is defined a bit earlier as a “structure or device designed or intended to convey information to the public in written or pictorial form. The term ‘sign’ shall be construed to include any decorative or structural framework, supports or attachments necessary for or incidental to such sign.”

I might be missing something, but nowhere does the code state that only paintings or murals that include the name or product sold are banned.  In fact, the definition of sign given could be so widely interpreted as to include such things as names of schools painted on walls since the obvious intent of such a painting would be to convey information (the name of the school).  Even the large mural on First Baptist Church could run afoul of the ordinance because it pictorially informs the public that the structure on which it is painted is a house of God and that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega.

At a minimum I would welcome some more insight into this matter from the Zoning Administration and/or the City Attorney.  Furthermore, I strongly encourage the City Council to step in and put a halt to enforcement of this regulation until such time that it can be revisited by the Council.

On a related note, while looking through the code I noticed a regulation pertaining to temporary political signs that could very well be an unconstitutional restriction of First Amendment protected speech rights.  Section 72.6.6 states, “A $25.00 annual permit fee shall be paid to the manager of inspection by each candidate or campaign organization erecting temporary political signs within the City of Huntsville .”  I do not believe that the city has any right to impose a fee upon any citizen who may choose to express a political opinion on their own property within the city.  It should be noted that the code makes no distinction between public and private property.  This is analogous to, but more invidious than, a poll tax.  Poll taxes are prohibited because they make a financial payment a precondition for voting.  This regulation imposes a financial payment as a precondition for those simply wishing to express a political opinion.

I’m requesting that an official with the Zoning Administration (or the responsible authority) provide me with documents listing all political candidates and organizations that have paid the $25 annual fee over the past four years.  I would like to determine if this regulation is being enforced as even handedly as the absurd painting regulation is purportedly being enforced.

Related content:

This entry was posted by Brian on Sunday, September 16th, 2007 at 8:41 pm and is filed under Huntsville. 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. Please note the copyright policy.