Skip to main content

Zoning Offense: Attacks on Free Speech


Among its proponents, zoning (where government dictates how we can use our property) is credited with accomplishing a multitude of good for the public. However, there is a dark side to governmental control of land use. Throughout its history, zoning has been deployed to categorically discriminate against and exclude whoever might be the chosen pariah of the day. Whether the target was a religious or racial minority or a member of lower economic classes, zoning was a tool to exclude certain individuals from protected neighborhoods. 


An early American land-use ordinance passed in San Francisco in the late 19th century provides us with a clear example of weaponized land use control. In a subtle attempt to discriminate against Chinese launderers, San Francisco passed an ordinance that seemed neutral on its face. Essentially, it was impermissible to operate a laundry in a wood building. At the time, 75% of laundries were run by Chinese owners, and every single one was located in a wood building. In an act of blatant discrimination, the city denied all applications for a variance submitted by Chinese owners while granting all white-owned operations permission to continue operations. The ordinance effectively banned Chinese laundries in the city. 


A Chinese immigrant challenged the ordinance. The case ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), resulting in a pivotal equal protection decision, Yick Wo v. Hopkins. In that case, SCOTUS invalidated the ordinance, which was decidedly anti-Chinese.


SCOTUS held that the ordinance was “applied . . . with a mind so unequal and oppressive as to amount to a practical denial by the State of that equal protection of the laws.” While SCOTUS generously left open the possibility of a legitimate intent of the government, it seems more likely that the application of the ordinance revealed its true, underlying intent. In fact, in a related case, a 9th Circuit judge admitted that the discriminatory effect of the ordinance “must be apparent to every citizen of San Francisco familiar with the cause of an active and aggressive branch of public opinion.”


Lest one think that such an offensive application of land use control is isolated or something you only read about in history books and dusty case law, consider two examples, both of which have occurred within the last couple of months. In these cases, fundamental rights were sacrificed for a lesser good. 


The first incident arose in our own back yard. You may recall news that hit the press at the beginning of October where Elk City, OK, requested that a resident remove a political banner from private property. The conflict was rooted in a land-use control enacted by the city, restricting the size, location, and duration of a political sign. When reading the ordinance, some aspects seem reasonable from a health and safety perspective, such as a prohibition against obstructing traffic signs, signals, and utility poles. Other aspects of the ordinance protect private property rights, such as requiring a private property owner's permission before placing a political sign on the property. However, other restrictions seem arbitrary and unnecessary. 


For example, according to the ordinance, a political sign cannot “exceed thirty-two (32) square feet on each of a maximum two (2) sides, in residential districts.” Is a sign that size big enough? I would think so. However, if it is not impacting people's health and safety, why does government need to limit the size? The ordinance then limits a political sign's display to 30 days prior to and 72 hours following the election. Additionally, the sign must be temporary and, in most cases, cannot be “attached to … the walls, face, or exterior of a building.” Such limitations are purely aesthetic in nature without any real connection to the health and safety of the community. Furthermore, the limited time frame reduces the value and impact of political speech – the vast majority of people will have likely backed a candidate in the month preceding an election. 


A second recent example comes from an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit – Signs for Jesus v. Town of Permbroke, NH.  In Signs for Jesus, the Pembroke Zoning Board of Adjustment (Board) denied Hillside Baptist Church (Hillside) a request to upgrade its analog sign with an electronic one. Aptly named, Hillside Baptist Church sits on the side of a hill. Wooded areas border the church’s property on three sides. Open lawn stretches down the hill from the front steps of the church to its frontage with Pembroke Street/Route 3. At the edge of the property, there is a small sign announcing the name of the church and a short, manually changeable, Christian message. The church wanted to partner with Signs for Jesus to install an electronic sign with messages that could be changed remotely. 


Signs for Jesus, a nonprofit organization with an evangelistic mission to change lives through the word of God by displaying Bible Verses on road signs, saw this as a godsend. Partnering with Hillside was an opportunity to place a new sign on a well-traveled corridor to the state’s capital. However, they met an obstacle. “Unfortunately, we are now facing some familiar difficulties,” reads a 2015 press release. The town of Pembroke informed the church that the LED signs were not permitted in the district where the church was located. In fact, the town restricted the placement of electronic signs to commercial districts and select lots along Pembroke Street. Of course, Hillside was not located in a commercial district and,  unluckily, not one of the specially designated lots. Consequently, the Board denied the initial permit as well a request for a variance because the sign would, in part, “detract from the rural character of the Route 3 corridor.” Spending nearly a quarter of their sign budget within a month on legal fees to secure a permit for the sign, Signs for Jesus lamented, “Once again we find ourselves taking a stand for our freedom of speech and religion that our forefathers fought and died for.” 


While one of the purported purposes of the ordinance was safety, the town conceded that safety was not an issue with Hillside’s proposed sign. Rather, the town’s interest was "preserv[ing] the existing neighborhood characteristics and aesthetics, including the rural and natural look of [Pembroke]." Ultimately, the court upheld the town’s judgment, reasoning that maintaining the area's rural nature was a significant government interest. 


Setting aside the court’s legal analysis, we can focus on the policy question. Should a governmental entity be permitted to restrict a private party’s fundamental right to free speech on private property for purely aesthetic reasons? It is nigh impossible to conceive of a scenario in which a right that is essential to the functioning of our republic should be limited for no apparent reason other than the artistic interpretation of the aesthetic elite. So, should fundamental rights be subordinate to aesthetic sensibilities? In short, the answer is no.


Brad Galbraith is the Land Use Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at bgalbraith@1889institute.org. 

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

Dear GT Bynum, Let the Children Play

I live close to a large City of Tulsa park that has a golf course, walking trail, green spaces, and a couple of playgrounds. My (almost) three-year old son loves the playgrounds, and often begs us during walks in our neighborhood to detour to “for-chun” (LaFortune Park). This seemingly innocent request can become a hassle when we don’t really have time, but we indulge him as much as possible. It’s good for kids to play outside, especially with other kids they might not otherwise come into contact with. But sometimes we have to contend with an upset toddler who doesn’t understand why we can’t go to the playground right this minute. I’m not complaining, every parent of young kids deals with similar stuff. But during the COVID lockdown, we’ve had to contend with an altogether different LaFortune Park situation with our son. As part of the mayor’s shelter-in-place overkill, all city-owned playgrounds were closed “ indefinitely .” This wasn’t a guideline or suggestion, the city meant busine

When It Comes to the Cox Center, “What if I Get to Meet a Movie Star?” Isn’t Good Enough

In a recent   post , 1889 Institute expounded on the fiduciary duty of elected officials “to act in the best interest of the people of the state as a whole,” a “high duty, executed as a public trust … wherein one puts the people’s interest above one’s own.” This fiduciary duty must not stop with elected officials. Once an elected body or an elected official – the legislature, a city council, the governor, or a mayor – has taken final action, the faithful implementation of each enacted law, policy, or program falls to an army of bureaucrats. Thus, a fiduciary duty to execute laws and policies with diligence and integrity, tantamount to that of elected officials, must extend to government employees. Recently, I had a few moments to sit down and watch a show with my children. Unsurprisingly, my son picked a series entitled “The Stinky and Dirty Show.” I was naturally skeptical that the show would yield any real value. However, as I watched, I found myself pleasantly surprised. Each episod

COVID Inspires Tyranny for the "Good" of Its Victims

The Christian philosopher, C.S. Lewis, once said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." The moral busybodies C.S Lewis warns of reminds me of those who would have Americans give up their liberty to combat COVID-19.   A recent Oklahoman op-ed compared COVID-19 to World War II, stating that the number of deaths from COVID-19 is approaching the number that died fighting for this country and the freedoms it protects. This comparison is, of course, nonsense. This suggests that a virus with a high survivability rate is an equivalent threat to the Nazi and Japanese regimes that brutally murdered millions. The piece uses wartime rationing of meat and cheese, a sacrifice necessary to ensure men on the front lines had adequate nutrition, to justify Americans accepting counterproductive lockdowns in exchange for additional stimulus c

The High Duty of Elected Officials and Ways They Fall Short

With an election just completed (the alleged voting, anyway), a legislative session coming up, constant talk of spending to offset the impacts of COVID-19, and elected officials trying to mandate our way out of a disease, the duty of elected officials in their official positions is worth considering. The 1889 Institute recently published a booklet for state lawmakers that discusses various issues and possible solutions. Included in that booklet is a short discussion of the central duty of elected officials, which is expanded here. What is the central, over-arching duty of an individual after having been elected to public office? Public oaths of office give a strong hint, and the Oklahoma Constitution is a good place to start. Article XV includes the oath of office, which states that an Oklahoma public official swears to “support, obey, and defend” the constitutions of the nation and the state, that the official will not take bribes, and that the official will discharge duties as best