Stomping on Free Speech in Virginia

Local officials in Buchanan, and elsewhere, use regulations to shut their critics, and victims, up.


It's easy to understand why officials in Buchanan, Va., would be mad at Ken and Francine Bray, after everything the two of them have done.

The retired couple sank their life savings into a business. It took off, and breathed new life into Main Street, which leaders had been trying desperately to revive. They gave bored kids something to do: Their Glow-a-Rama featured a game room, indoor golf course, and a dance floor (all under black light, hence the name). It was a popular spot. By last January the place had hosted more than 200 dances, according to the Brays.

So naturally, the town shut them down. And when they put up signs in the windows of Glow-a-Rama to protest such treatment ("WHAT A DISGRACE!"), the town threatened to fine them into bankruptcy.

Buchanan's leaders say the Brays didn't follow the bureaucratic guidelines stipulating the proper procedure for new-use zoning allowances. And the signs have to come down because the Brays "submitted an application for a sign permit that lacked the necessary details," reports The Roanoke Times.

As Town Manager Mary Zirkle told the newspaper, "They did not provide the required, requested information. Therefore, no sign permit was issued when the business was opened."

Sam Gedge, a lawyer with the Arlington-based Institute for Justice, says Buchanan officials "promised that they would scour the code book for 'violations of ordinances that the Town can pursue' against the Brays. … It was little surprise, then, that the local planning commission recently dusted off the sign code and decided that the Brays' protest sign violated a battery of laws. To give just a couple of examples, the commission complains that the signs obscure architectural details such as arches, sills and transom windows and that they obstruct 'light or air.' But talk of transom windows serves only to distract from the obvious: Having shut down the Brays' business, Buchanan wants to shut them up too."

That might make Buchanan petty, but it doesn't make Buchanan unique.

Norfolk officials did the same thing to Bob Wilson, the owner of Central Radio, after the city tried to take his property through eminent domain. Norfolk wanted to sell Wilson's property to another private developer in a deal that would have netted the city's housing authority a 4 percent commission.

Norfolk ultimately lost that fight. During the course of it, though, Wilson put up a big sign on the side of his building to protest the attempted taking. Norfolk insisted he take it down: It was distracting to drivers, and bigger than the city's sign ordinance allowed, and so on. But those considerations applied only to private signs — not to the city's own flags, or religious emblems, or artworks.

The Fourth Circuit upheld Norfolk's selective enforcement of selective criteria in a 2-1 decision, but the Supreme Court recently vacated that decision and sent it back for review.

The same thing happened to Jim Roos when he tried to protest eminent domain exercised by St. Louis. Roos developed affordable housing for the poor; the city wanted a different private developer to have his property. Roos painted a big protest sign on one of his buildings. St. Louis made him apply for a sign permit — and then denied it. Roos fought (with the help of the Institute for Justice) andeventually won: The 8th Circuit ruled that parts of St. Louis' sign ordinance violated the First Amendment.

To many in local government, people like Roos and Wilson are troublemakers. By insisting they have a right to their own property, they get in the way of other people's grand designs — and impede the collection of more tax revenue. As if that weren't bad enough, when officials bring the full force of the government down on their heads, they have the temerity to object. Publicly.

Buchanan's Glow-a-Rama drama takes this imperious attitude to another level. Instead of a thriving business, Glow-a-Rama is now an empty shell. The Brays have run out of money and might have to file for bankruptcy, especially if Buchanan starts socking them with a $100-a-day fine for their signage.

What the town's leaders hope to achieve with all of this is a mystery. They certainly aren't putting out a welcome mat for anyone else who might want to start a business there. But they are proving that small burgs can be just as high-handed, autocratic, and indifferent to free-speech fundamentals as their big-city cousins. Why in the world they would want to, of course, is a different story.

This column originally appeared in the Richmond TImes-Dispatch.

NEXT: No More Secret Grand Juries in California for Police Abuse Cases

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sociopaths come in all sizes.

  2. Autocratic bullies gotta autocratically bully.

  3. Actually, I’d bet that small burgs can be WAY MORE high-handed, autocratic, and indifferent to free-speech fundamentals as their big-city cousins. It doesn’t draw as much attention, and from my experience, I’d say small-town governments draw more than their share of little Napoleons.

  4. the sign thing is bad enough… but then to see what the sign is about. basically forced out of business by denied permits. like an overly oppressive HOA on steroids.

    1. I can see why the ordinances would apply to business signage, but the second it becomes a protest sign, its becomes protected political speech – pressing the ordinance is opening the officials up for a civil rights case. I’m fairly certain they wouldn’t want that. but stupid is as stupid does.

  5. Good article. However, I would point out that “But they are proving that small burgs can be just as high-handed, autocratic, and indifferent to free-speech fundamentals as their big-city cousins.” misses the real point. The reason for limited government is human nature. This wasn’t a “small burg” misbehaving, but the officials of that burg acting out human nature of trying to get what they want, the end justifies the means, revenge, greed, envy, basically many of human nature’s lower and nastier elements.
    These types of behaviors are fairly common among humans, which is why the founding fathers tried to create a system of government that prevented small minded tyrants or well meaning know it alls from using government (threat of violence) to force their will on others. I fear this basic tenent of our government structure has been completely lost on most Americans. If so, the US is doomed to follow all the other empires onto the scrap heap of history.
    Time will tell.

    1. Perfectly stated.

      1. Agreed.

  6. “Why in the world they would want to, of course, is a different story.”
    The same reason people kill people with guns in this country. Because they can.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.