Regulatory Changes for 2016: Two Concerns for PSPs By Richard Romano It isn’t very often that Supreme Court decisions affect the graphic arts industry, but last June, the Supremes rendered a verdict that may have an impact on sign codes nationwide, although what that impact and its extent may be are not entirely known. The case was Reed v. Town of Gilbert, and was the result of inconsistent and unconstitutional regulation of temporary signage. In Gilbert, AZ, the Good News Community Church had no fixed location, so it erected temporary directional signs to let congregants know where services were being held. The town, like most towns, had sign codes that placed restrictions on the size of the signage, as well as how long it could be displayed. So far, all well and good, as most temporary signage is regulated this way. The problem was that the church’s signage ended up being more highly regulated than other similar types of temporary signage, such as that which was commercially or politically oriented. The court ruled—unanimously—that this regulation was content-based, limited speech, and thus was a violation of the First Amendment. (The International Sign Association discussed it at length here: www.signs.org/Newsroom/PressReleases/Press- Release.aspx?PressReleaseID=3316.) “The case basically says that the church wasn’t allowed to have a sign based on it being a religious sign, or an event sign for their religious services,” said Rick Hartwig, EHS Specialist, Government and Business Information, for SGIA. “Other signs that were identical to theirs were allowed to be up longer and had fewer restrictions. So this sign had fewer allowances and more restrictions based on its content.” What this will specifically mean for those in local governments who create and modify sign codes—and thus what signage producers and their clients will need to comply with—remains to be seen. Ultimately, municipalities will reevaluate their individual sign codes to ensure that regulations are applied consistently and without regard to what the signs actually say. “It will primarily look at putting people on notice who are making these codes to make sure the codes are content-neutral,” said Hartwig. “You can make as many regulations as you want, but they can’t interfere with Constitutional rights.” Hartwig doesn’t feel there are going to be any massive, universal changes in sign codes as a result of the Gilbert decision, but city planners may take the opportunity to look at their sign codes sooner rather than later. “It’s going to happen on more or less an individual basis,” said Hartwig. “Most of the changes that are going to be occurring in the first quarter of 2016 are either going to be changes they had coming down the pike for some time, but they’re implementing now because of this decision, or they realized their codes were really bad and they wanted to avoid the same pitfalls as Gilbert.” Regardless of the Gilbert decision, sign codes are always changing, and while, as we pointed out in a story last year, the physical producer or printer of signage doesn’t necessarily have to be the one who is an expert on local sign codes—that’s really the responsibility of the sign owner (that is, the customer) him- or herself— sign shops can and do keep track of the latest regulations as a value-added service. A day after the Supreme court ruled in favor of the Good News Presbyterian Church in Gilbert, its Pastor, Rev. Clyde Reed, put up the signs that inspired the case. 22 Wide-Format & Signage | April 2016 PrintingNews.com
WideFormat_And_Signage_April_2016
To see the actual publication please follow the link above