Dallas Bullies Businesses Into Dropping Challenge to Silly Sign Rules
The Institute for Justice says the Dallas businesses that challenged the city's senseless sign regulations on First Amendment grounds are giving up the fight, citing the threat of ruinous fines:
A federal court allowed the city to seek $1,000 per day in fines over the window signs. The court also denied the business owners' request for an injunction suspending enforcement of the ordinance while the lawsuit was pending. Over 300 days had passed between the city's filing of its motion and the court's ruling. Dallas used the delay to argue that it was entitled to $300,000 from each business that left its signs up while the parties awaited the court's ruling….
"It breaks my heart to drop this suit, but $300,000 in fines would put me out of business," said Dena McDonald, owner of Tiki Trips on McKinney Avenue and one of the plaintiffs in the case. "It's ridiculous for Dallas to say that the small signs on my door harmed anybody, much less to the tune of $1,000 per day."
I.J.attorney Matt Miller says the city is "punishing people for daring to challenge its authority."
I discussed the sign restrictions, which say commercial signs may cover no more than 15 percent of windows or glass doors and may not appear in the upper two-thirds at all, here and here. I.J. has more information on the case here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The ordinance only applies to commercial signs. Business owners are free to cover their windows completely with political posters, artwork, shelves, coolers or even black paint
That part of the ordinance will change as soon as one of the businesses puts a sign critical of the anti-sign ordinance in their window.
But that's a much harder case for the city to win.
They do everything big in Texas except for window signage.
it's true - they are the biggest pussies for caving to the TSA.
Seconded! You really think the Department of Justice would have instituted a no-fly zone on Texas? Largest state economy in the nation (or at least in the top three)?
Dallas is different, though. For example, they implement property zoning (the selective enforcement of which tends to be used as one of the billy clubs of non-governmental organized crime).
Dallas represent! Where all my metroplex homies at? GO MAVS!
Fuck, it's hot in Plano.
Yep, I'm in P-town also, and sweated my balls off sitting in my truck trying to nap during my lunch hour.
Srsly. just mowed the lawn. damn heat.
Seriously, I'm ready to start some anarchy in the Big D. This makes me so angry I'm cussing out loud at my workplace. A serious correction to this - a complete ban on theivery via arbitrary ordinance and including waivers for past victims and reparations for all court costs - better be on the next local ballot.
Also, GO MAVS!
We'll get right on that once all the hearings and investigations from the Trinity Toll fiasco get worked through the system. Give it 5 or 10 years.
Course, I'm in Plano, not Dallas proper, so I can sit back and throw stones from a safe distance.
The NTTWA (North Texas Toll Way Authority) is trying to fire its sixth director in four years. He wants to get away from using the "usual" people for consulting or something. Damn those guys are dirty up there.
Or a "Tom Landry Was a Fag*" sign.
*NTTAWWT
Landry sure knew how to rock a Fedora.
Epi, a lot of us thought the Jerrydome's retractable roof should have been a giant Fedora.
Hank Hill's barber: "So what'll it be? The Roger Staubach or the Rookie Roger Staubach?"
Step (1) Koch brothers funnel $15,000 to someone in Dallas to start a convenience store organized as a LLC
Step (2) Open store with window sign -- get fined
Step (3) Have Institute of Justice represent you in court.
Step (4) If you fail, have the LLC declare bankruptcy and move on.
Step (5) ???
Step (6) Profit!
Step (0): Ignore the First Amendment and focus on some red herring like where the funding comes fund.
Well apparently I didn't edit my post well enough. *From*, obviously.
This is a big nothing. Any one store can file a challenge at any time, and need not put up a violative sign in the window in the meantime. The city is not going to save the ordinance by these tactics.
the city is "punishing people for daring to challenge its authority."
*SHOCKED FACE*
Although, this being Tejas and all?
Texas, I am disappoint.
Yeah. It is disappointing. But Dallas City Council has always been like that. They killed a whole bunch of stuff to get their stupid-ass "Smart Growth" policies running...Industrial Ave. is now "Riverfront", not that you can actually SEE the damn Trinity thanks to the giant flood control dykes, Deep Ellum is barely alive (partially the landlords' fault). Whole bunch of stupid sh*t.
Why do I have to love this damn city?
Ridiculous fines don't have a chilling effect on speech, right?
Not for the Kocktopus. It has +5resist against Cold.
A federal court allowed the city to seek $1,000 per day in fines over the window signs. The court also denied the business owners' request for an injunction suspending enforcement of the ordinance while the lawsuit was pending.
"You should've applied some lube before leaving the house, Citizen. You will be fined if you refuse to desist your cries of pain."
I wonder if they hang a sign an inch or two back from the window, does that violate the ordinance?
That was my thought too. They just need signs to be visible thru the window, not necessarily attached to it, to be effective. Since the edict specifies the relative height at which signs can be placed in windows and the area covered, it must apply to signs attached to windows, because otherwise parallax renders meaningless any of those measurements.
Failing that, they can brick up their windows and put their signs on the wall.
The explanation for giving up the fight makes no sense to me. Just one day's fine would give you sufficient standing to challenge the law in court. And the IJ probably isn't charging fees, or is charging modest ones.
Yeah this makes no sense- why not just take the signs down and continue the lawsuit free of daily fines?
I wonder how much the city has spent on documenting the daily "violations"? Will they really be able to have someone testify under oath that "Yes, the sign was there on January 23. I saw it at 12:21pm and wrote a citation. The sign was there on January 24. I wrote a citation at 1:13pm." etc. for 300+ "violations"?
I am certainly not a Texas lawyer, but why not take down the signs but continue the lawsuit?
Nothing in this story explains the headline and why the challenge itself was dropped.
thanks