City Council member plans to push no-signs measure

A North Little Rock City Council member said she plans to put forward an ordinance at the next council meeting that would crack down on placement of signs on any public property, saying the city is getting too cluttered.

This idea comes as a stopgap measure while city officials analyze U.S. Supreme Court decisions on sign codes.

City Council members tabled an ordinance Feb. 10 prohibiting signs in the public right of way, along with amending and repealing certain provisions of the North Little Rock code, because several members had questions about the rule. Council member Linda Robinson, sponsor of the ordinance, said she plans to bring it back up for a vote at the council meeting next Monday.

Robinson said a proliferation of signs in the public right of way has resulted in cluttered city spaces. She said the ordinance can have significant effect on traffic safety, as well as property values, economic development, business opportunities and community appearance.

“I have been fussing about signs for the past four years,” Robinson said. “People don’t have respect for city property.” City Attorney Amy Fields said the city has a sign code and other provisions, but North Little Rock, like many cities, faces challenges enforcing its code because of previous federal First Amendment cases.

Fields said the Supreme Court case Reed v. Town of Gilbert changed how cities looked at proposed sign codes. In 2015, the court determined that cities cannot regulate signs based upon their content.

That opinion confirmed content discrimination as a principle of First Amendment law, but the ruling still causes confusion for justices and local leaders across the country.

Fields said the proposed ordinance allows the city to legally enforce the sign prohibition until the federal cases can better define the First Amendment rule when it comes to free speech regulation.

“The way the Supreme Court has ruled, we can’t pick and choose the signs that are allowed and not allowed,” Fields said. “This way we can make sure we aren’t doing anything wrong.”

City spokesman Jim Billings said Mayor Joe Smith understands what Robinson wants to do with the ordinance and he hopes that whatever passes is fair and enforceable.

The proposed ordinance defines a sign as any device or display visible to the general public that uses a presentation of any kind to advertise or announce a product, place, activity, person, institution or other entity, or to communicate a message of information of any kind to the public.

Fields said this includes lost-pet signs on utility poles and stop signs.

The ordinance also classifies the “public right-of-way” as any area of real property dedicated to or owned by the city or the public or any other public body. This includes sidewalks, landscape strips, shoulders, parkways, crosswalks, light posts, utility poles, traffic and parking control signs and devices, trees and any other object located in the public right of way.

“What is frustrating is that anytime there is an election, we don’t put campaign signs up because we know the rules, but our opponents don’t and they will put them anywhere,” Robinson said. “That is not right. Everybody should follow the rules.”

The proposed ordinance states that any sign violating the prohibition would be declared a public nuisance, removed and given to the Street Department. If the sign was not claimed within 10 days, the city could dispose of it.