Public Property Clarified
Public property, as distinct from those things which are owned by an individual, are lands, buildings, streets, or other areas that are owned by any governmental agency anywhere in the world. The streets that run through your neighborhood, the park that your kids play in, the courthouse or the state capital building in your city, the post office or city hall, all of these properties fit the definition of public property. These are owned by the government at the state or local level and are not the private property of a single individual . It’s a catch-all term for any property that is owned by any governmental body anywhere, either at the national, state, or local level.
There is a big difference between public and private property. Private property, as a general rule, belongs to a single individual, or to a group or family such as a homeowner’s association, although there may be exceptions depending on the laws in that area. Typically, private property is not accessible to the general public. Public property, in contrast, belongs to the government either at the local, state, or national level, and is often accessible to the general public as a normal part of everyday life.
General Guidelines for Sign Placement on Public Property
Generally, in order to put something up on public property, you need permission from the governmental entity that owns it. In New York City, for example, this would mean the Parks Department with regard to putting something up in a park. However, there are circumstances where even if you have permission from the governmental entity, you may also need permission from the people privately engaged in business on the property.
For instance, if you wanted to put something up in front of the Staten Island Ferry Terminal, you may need the permission of the City and, depending on the signs, the permission of the operator of the terminal as well. In the event you don’t have permission, the governmental entity can remove your sign, or they may prosecute you criminally or civilly.
This is why it’s always a good idea to check with the local government about the sign laws or, as with the case with many private properties, the "no trespassing signs" the business has up outside.
In general, the laws about putting things up the government’s property (and on private property) include the following:
- No structures, including signs, are allowed to be built without permission.
- Signs are not permitted to be erected in the roadway, highway median, or the side of the road.
- Signs cannot obstruct view for pedestrian or drivers.
- No pickup trucks with commercial advertisement are allowed to stop on the roadways to conduct business.
- Commercial trucks can only park within residential developments to conduct business (and must have permission of the residents to do so).
Local Ordinance Variations
Local governments have their own ordinances and regulations governing signage on public property. For example, municipalities have the authority to regulate the time period during which signs can be placed on public property, to set size restrictions, to authorize location of certain types of signs on public property, and to require permit for the placement of a sign on public property. Again, these are generally done even handedly with respect to other entities. For example, an ordinance may provide that signs are prohibited at all times except during the week before an election. While this ordinance may create a burden on proponents of yes or no on the ballot measure being decided during the week after the election, it does not discriminate between competing election signs and thus probably will pass constitutional muster. Just the same, an ordinance might state that election signs may only be posted during the week prior to an election or referendum, but political signs for the party in power are permitted throughout the year. In that case it might be a violation of the Constitution for the ordinance to be enforced against one party in order to favor another party.
So take a look at the signs in your community. Are they evenly distributed, or do you see predominant coverage for one political party? That may be a perfect example of an unconstitutional ordinance if it is the ordinance that provides for the discrepancy – and a perfect example of a constitutionally permissible ordinance if individuals and/or groups are the source of the imbalance.
Exceptions, Permits, and Variants
There are exceptions to the general rule regarding the legality of signs on public property. These include memorials, street markers, and residential street signs. Memorials are permitted by many jurisdictions. The more common exception is for street markers and street signs installed and maintained by the respective municipality. Some localities allow homeowners to install their own street signs within the right-of-way but have erected conditions for the placement of the signage, such as the material used and the height of the signpost. Further, other municipalities require a permit prior to placement in the right-of-way.
Penalties for Posting Signs Without Permission
The consequences are certainly not worth the price you will pay. Not only under sign code is it illegal to post any signs on public property, but the Police, Code Enforcement, and other City workers will be re-moved from their normal duties to remove illegal signs and immediately report any sign violators to the police department to issue a citation. Also, by your illegal activities is how rural areas have been devastated by so many signs being posted illegally causing blight and unsightliness. In short , signage laws are on the books to keep our neighborhoods and cities looking clean and safe for everyone to enjoy free of debris and offensive materials that illegally posted signs tend to cause. If someone photographs or videotapes you posting a sign illegally the police may use those images as evidence against you in a court of law. This alone could lead to criminal prosecution successfully obtaining a criminal conviction where you will be found guilty and instead of community service and fines you will receive jail time and/or probation and fined for a criminal misdemeanor. Also, the City prosecutes all illegal sign violators and fines them up to $100 per day per sign. The City will also attempt to recover costs of both labor to remove illegal signs and materials to repair or remove damage to public and private property.
Other Options and Methods for Displaying Signs
When the legalities of posting signs on public property are too much of a hurdle, alternative strategies can be employed. For starters, consider using private property. Depending on your type of business or event, there may be opportunities to enlist the help of local businesses and landlords in getting your message out. Retail stores and shopping centers may be more receptive than you think, especially if your message will drive people to their location or maintain/enhance customer foot traffic. Restaurants and hotels often need signage for special events they are hosting or planning. Landlords with undeveloped property may welcome the opportunity to advertise available lots in prospective real estate deals. These types of arrangements can benefit both parties.
Another excellent option is digital signage. A growing number of municipalities are approving the use of digital media such as scrolling electric billboards and kiosk-style information stations. And as a result, businesses are increasingly turning to digital billboard advertising to maximize their return on investment by targeting key market areas and demographics. This offers a more flexible and less expensive marketing strategy than traditional approaches. In addition to single-station displays, many advertising organizations offer multiple locations and territories to suit your needs. Digital signs are a good, sustainable way to promote the goings-on in your business or community without consuming valuable paper and printing resources.
Precedents and Specific Cases
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in City of Ladue v. Gilleo that the government may regulate signs in residential areas but cautioned that "government may impose regulations on signs that fall short of the strict scrutiny normally applied to content-based restrictions on speech." Many of the cases that followed, however, demonstrated that local governments went too far in their sign ordinances.
Bishop v. Aronov Realty Management, Inc. is a case in point. The apartment management company in that case prohibited employees from posting notices of any type on any part of the property using bright colors. The court weighed the parties’ arguments and decided that the management’s blanket prohibition was not reasonable. As to colors, the judge wrote, "It is hard to understand how the use of blue or yellow letters, for example, would be more distracting, confusing, or offensive than the ten-foot high bushes on the balcony."
In 2005, the court in Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh ordered enforcement of a city sign ordinance to stop while the city addressed whether such an ordinance constituted a taking. The plaintiffs were landlords who had been charged with violating a city ordinance citing the size and location of the signs .
The case of Tenderloin Housing Clinic v. Sparks also revolved around a city sign ordinance, the main effect of which was establishment of a minimum distance between advertising signs and residential housing, including residences and schools. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the ordinance, saying, "The fundamental flaw in the City’s advertising ban is that the prohibited area constitutes a substantial part of San Francisco."
In Sacred Heart of Jesus Church v. City of Lawrence Park, the district court said that the government cannot enforce its way to a result. In other words, by issuing unconstitutional restrictions on where people can post signs, cities force would-be sign-deployers into conflict with the First Amendment. In this case, the owner of a business that incided onto the private property of a church was subsequently ordered to erect a fence to keep his customers from parking at the church. The church objected, saying it was an unreasonable restriction on its right to use its own property, and that the ordinance was unconstitutional. The judge agreed, noting that the church had never had a parking problem before the city issued its order.