OKC opposes injunction in sign suit

The city of Oklahoma City contends a resident who won a challenge to one provision of the city's sign code is overreaching by asking a court to bar enforcement of the code.

Fred rick Knutson erected signs critical of city government on his property at SW 89 and Council Road.

Exactly seven years ago this Thursday, the city issued the first of four citations accusing Knutson of exceeding the size limits for an“expressive” sig nina residential area.

In July, U.S. District Judge Scott Palk declared the sign code was unconstitutional, and declined to dismiss Knutson's claims t hat his free speech rights and rights to equal protection under the law had been violated.

Palk also declined to dismiss Knutson's claim that he was a victim of retaliation by city officials.

Palkfoundt he 38- page sign ordinance regulated speech based on its content, a violation of the First Amendment absent a showing by the government that its regulations “further a compelling interest and are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.”

The judge rejected the city's assertion that the sign code's purpose is “to increase

safety, l essen congestion on the streets, con serve residential values, provide for improved community appearance, and encourage t he most appropriate use of land.” Palk asked for additional argument son Knutson' s request for an injunction barring enforcement of the sign code.

In a court filing this month, the city argued Knutson is not entitled to an injunction.

Attorneys pointed out that the city attorney decided more than five years ago not to issue any more citations to Knutson.

That decision was made after the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled the section of the sign code used to prosecute Knutson applied only to residential property. Knutson's land is zoned for agriculture.

In the interim, the city has hired a consulting firm to review the entire sign code.

While that review is underway, the city attorney's office plans to ask the city council to approve sign code revisions deleting “all references to expressive, noncommercial content” as a basis for taking enforcement action against a sign.

Attorneys for the city say Knutson “is not realistically threatened by further court citations.”

And no one's interests would be served, they assert, by a judicial examination of the dusty corners of the ordinance, in a quest to justify an injunction.

“There is no need for this court to expend its valuable time reviewing every subsection of the city's sign code,” they wrote.