NAT. ADVERTISING CO. v. City of Bridgeton

626 F. Supp. 837, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12232
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri
DecidedDecember 30, 1985
Docket84-2089C(3)
StatusPublished

This text of 626 F. Supp. 837 (NAT. ADVERTISING CO. v. City of Bridgeton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
NAT. ADVERTISING CO. v. City of Bridgeton, 626 F. Supp. 837, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12232 (E.D. Mo. 1985).

Opinion

626 F.Supp. 837 (1985)

NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BRIDGETON, Defendant.

No. 84-2089C(3).

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D.

December 30, 1985.

Patrick C. Dowd, Coburn, Croft & Putzell, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.

William A. Richter and W. Mark Rasmussen, Peper, Martin, Jensen, Maichel & Hetlage, St. Louis, Mo., for defendant.

*838 MEMORANDUM OPINION

HUNGATE, District Judge.

"I love a billboard, I always will

Because a billboard gives me such a thrill.

When I was only a little child

A circus billboard drove me wild."

The Billboard March, by John N. Klohr.

Apparently, billboards have likewise attracted the attention of the Bridgeton City Council. This suit follows defendant's denial, pursuant to its ordinance prohibition against "billboards," of plaintiff's applications for building permits to erect outdoor advertising structures on leased property.

The relevant Bridgeton ordinances allow some exceptions, perhaps in the interest of due process rights of land owners to erect signs on their own property relating to the business or profession carried on there. They further permit, perhaps in the interest of the first amendment, for temporary periods relating to elections, signs denoting issues or candidates supported or opposed; no bias or preference is dictated by the ordinance.

Can a city, in the interest of aesthetics, restrict off-site signs erected for profit? Or signs calling attention to a business or profession not conducted or service or product not available on the premises on which the sign is located?

The Court's consideration of the difficult questions presented here was aided by outstanding presentations made by counsel on both sides.

Findings of Fact

1. Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and qualified to transact business as a foreign corporation in the State of Missouri.

2. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of outdoor advertising throughout the United States, including the metropolitan St. Louis area.

3. Defendant is a "Constitutional Charter City" under Article 6, Section 19 of the Constitution of the State of Missouri of 1945, as amended.

4. The powers of the defendant are derived from Article 6, Section 19(a) of the Constitution of the State of Missouri of 1945, as amended.

5. As a part of its outdoor advertising business, plaintiff (a) leases real estate; (b) erects and maintains outdoor advertising signs on the real estate it leases; and (c) leases space on its signs to persons or entities to display advertising on the signs. The advertising messages displayed on plaintiff's signs include non-commercial and commercial speech. The speech advertised is for lawful activities and is not misleading.

6. The non-commercial speech advertised on plaintiff's signs includes (a) services performed by charitable and civic organizations; (b) fund raising campaigns for charitable and civic organizations; (c) campaigns to fight crime, drug addiction, and drunken driving; (d) political messages by candidates for public offices; (e) messages on political issues; and (f) messages by religious organizations.

7. The commercial speech advertised on plaintiff's signs includes advertisements by (a) hotels and motels; (b) restaurants; (c) motorist services; (d) tourist attractions; (e) businesses selling products or services; (f) radio and television stations; and (g) financial institutions.

8. During 1984, plaintiff leased three parcels of real estate within the municipal boundaries of the City of Bridgeton and in areas zoned by the defendant for commercial or industrial purposes. The leased real estate is located within 600 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of two interstate highways which are located within the municipal boundaries of the defendant, are a part of the interstate highway system in the State of Missouri, and are interstate highways for the purposes of Mo.Rev.Stat. § 226.500, et seq. (1978).

9. Plaintiff seeks to erect a 14' by 48' monopole outdoor advertising sign on each of the leased parcels of real estate for use *839 in plaintiff's outdoor advertising business. In June of 1984 plaintiff applied to defendant for permits to build an outdoor advertising structure on each of the leased properties.

10. At all times material to this action, Article VI of Chapter 5 of defendant's Municipal Code[1] and Ordinance No. 84-85 enacted by defendant on August 15, 1984,[2] prohibited off-site commercial and non-commercial advertising. Due to these prohibitions, the other provisions of old Article VI and of Ordinance No. 84-54 were not intended to apply to off-site outdoor advertising signs.

11. The provisions in old Article VI of Chapter 5 of defendant's Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 84-54 of defendant's Municipal Code which prohibit off-site outdoor advertising signs were enacted by defendant only for the purpose of maintaining and improving aesthetics within defendant's municipal boundaries. Aesthetics is a governmental interest which the defendant can advance if done properly.

12. Pursuant to defendant's ordinances, which declare unlawful signs advertising products, articles, or services not produced or available on the property on which the sign is located, defendant denied each of plaintiff's building permit applications. Plaintiff was unable to build outdoor advertising signs on the three premises it leased, and has not been able to realize the profits it would have realized had the signs been erected and maintained.

13. But for old Article VI of Chapter 5 of defendant's Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 84-54 of defendant's Municipal Code, plaintiff would be entitled to a sign permit and could erect and maintain the type of sign plaintiff desires to erect on each of the parcels of real estate leased by the plaintiff.

Conclusions of Law

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the pendent state law preemption claim and therefore does not determine that claim. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966).

2. Do the Bridgeton ordinances at issue here constitute a prior restraint on free *840 speech? Yes, as to advertising a business or profession provided or a product not available on the premises where the sign is located.

Is this the sort of prior restraint on free speech forbidden by the first amendment to the United States Constitution? No.

I think that I shall never see A billboard lovely as a tree Indeed, unless the billboards fall I'll never see a tree at all.

"Song of the Open Road," The Ogden Nash Pocket Book, 6 (1944).

Consider, what other avenues of expression are available to plaintiff in this case? The Official Manual of the State of Missouri for the years 1983 and 1984 indicates the St. Louis metropolitan area has more than fifteen newspapers, over twenty radio stations, and six television stations.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cox v. New Hampshire
312 U.S. 569 (Supreme Court, 1941)
Colegrove v. Green
328 U.S. 549 (Supreme Court, 1946)
Reynolds v. Sims
377 U.S. 533 (Supreme Court, 1964)
United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs
383 U.S. 715 (Supreme Court, 1966)
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham
394 U.S. 147 (Supreme Court, 1969)
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego
453 U.S. 490 (Supreme Court, 1981)
United States v. Leonard Peltier
585 F.2d 314 (Eighth Circuit, 1978)
United States v. Leonard Peltier
731 F.2d 550 (Eighth Circuit, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
626 F. Supp. 837, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nat-advertising-co-v-city-of-bridgeton-moed-1985.