89-18
"
:!~99-/g
.
o
RESOLUTION NO. 89-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COfflISSION OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, TO THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE
EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO HOUSE BILL 903 AND SENATE BILL
542, WHICH RELATE TO THE SUBJECT OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING.
WHEREAS, House Bill 903 and Senate Bill 542 will, if enacted, require each
local governmental entity to pay Ujust compensationU whenever the governmental
entity causes the removal or alteration of any lawfully erected sign along any
public street or highway, if the subject matter of the sign relates to premises
other than the premises on which the sign is located or to merchandise, services,
activities or entertainment not sold, produced, manufactured or furnished on the
premises on which the sign is located: and
WHEREAS, the city of Clearwater, like many other cities and counties in
the State of Florida, has exercised its powers of home rule under the Florida
Constitution by adopting comprehensive sign regulations including, among other
things, a 7-year amortization period for otherwise lawful signs which have become
nonconforming because of adoption of the sign regulations: and
WHEREAS, the city of Clearwater opposes House Bill 903 and Senate Bill 542
for the.reasons set forth in this resolution: now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City Commission of the City of Clearwater hereby expresses
its opposition to House Bill 903 and Senate Bill 542 for the following reasons:
1. Beca~se of the large number of signs which will be removed, reduced
in size or otherwise altered pursuant to local government sign regulations,
requiring compensation to the owner will constitute a prohibitive tax burden on
local government taxpayers, and will likely cause local governments to abandon
entirely their efforts to regulate outdoor signs.
2. . The Fifth District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida has
already determined that a reasonable amortization period for nonconforming signs
is a valid alternative to compensation. Lamar AdvertisinQ Associates of East
Florida v. City of Davtona Beach, 450 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), review
denied 458 So.2d 272 (Fla. 1984).
3. The regulation of outdoor signs is highly desirable for aesthetic
reasons, and aesthetics alone have been found to be a sufficient justification'
for the regulation of outdoor signs. Naeaele Outdoor Advertisina v. City of
Durham, 844 F.2d 172 (4th Cir. 1988).
1