Moses Lake tables sign ordinance again

MOSES LAKE — The Moses Lake City Council continued to listen to concerns about an amendment to clarify an ordinance regulating the placement of signs in the city Tuesday night.

Council did not take action to approve or deny the ordinance because the revised draft was not presented. Instead it was tabled once more.

Many citizens were concerned the ordinance infringes upon their constitutional rights to exercise free speech and to assemble. City council and staff maintain the ordinance amendment does not change the current law, rather it clarifies where signs can be placed.

For the past several years council abided by the current ordinance concerning sign placement. It was previously interpreted signs could be placed on city property with council approval. After several requests to place signs on city property and right-of-way, council advised city staff to review the ordinance to find a simpler way to handle the requests. Some councilmembers advised they disliked seeing political and commercial signs throughout the city. After reviewing the ordinance, staff came to the conclusion the ordinance was actually written to prohibit signs from being placed on city property and city right-of-ways. Staff re-drafted an ordinance clarifying the law to present to council. The revised copy was not made available to the council.

At the previous meeting, the issue was tabled. Council unanimously approved to remove the issue from table.

“This is a clarification,” said City Manager Joe Gavinski. “It is just that.”

He explained the existing ordinance does not allow signs to be placed on city property either.

The current ordinance is confusing and the amendment clarifies the confusion so staff is able to direct citizens about sign placement without requiring them to ask council for permission each time, said Mayor Ron Covey.

“If in fact you did nothing with the ordinance, nothing changes,” Gavinski said.

He said they found a U.S. Supreme Court case ruling allowing cities to prohibit the placement of signs on city property and right-of-ways.

Council listened to citizen comment on the topic.

Alan Odermann said he is interested in speaking with the original councilmembers who drafted the current ordinance to determine if the intent was to prohibit the placement of signs from city property and right-of-ways.

He said he reviewed past agendas and saw the highest volume of sign requests were in spring and summer. He questioned how many requests there were and whether it is considered a large amount of requests.

Odermann said he was disappointed staff did not locate various areas signs could be permitted in the city.

He asked why the city does not consider a higher level of allowance for political signs over commercial signs.

“Political speech has a higher level than commercial speech,” he said. “I think it’s very wrong to combine the two matters. I believe you can allow political signs and disallow commercial signs.”

Odermann explained there is a need for people to defend their constitutional rights and he worries the ordinance limits political speech.

Councilmember Bill Ecret asked Odermann if he is bothered by the amount of commercial signs in the city.

Odermann said he was not bothered.

Ecret explained the city hired a development team to evaluate how the city could be made more appealing. The team advised against commercial signs and noted there were more than 12 commercial signs in the city every 150 feet.

Odermann said he does not believe it is necessary to consider political signs and commercial signs together.

Covey said state law does not allow for the signs to be considered separate.

“In Washington, the regulation of signs has to be content neutral,” said City Attorney Jim Whitaker.

Covey said he did not believe his constitutional rights were not being inhibited because signs are still allowed on private property.

Robert Payne said he agreed with Odermann’s comments.

He said he would sign petitions against the ordinance.

At the previous council meeting, a petition with 144 signatures of those against the ordinance was presented to city council. It was later determined many of the signatures were from people who did not live in Moses Lake city limits.

Payne said if there was a lawsuit to overturn the ordinance, he would join.

“We the people are awake,” said Julia Hodgson. “We want to be heard and we want to be involved.”

She said without the placement of signs, it prevents communication between people who wish to assemble for events such as a protest. It prevents people from knowing where to go for a political rally, she said.

Hodgson asked the council to consider an ordinance allowing for the placement of signs with reasonable restrictions rather than a ban.

Ann Mix said the signs are a vital way of communication.

“The signs have actually informed people of what we’re doing,” she said about political events.

She said it brings like-minded people together who might not otherwise meet.

Mix said she hopes the council will allow groups to announce political rallies through the use of signs in the future.

Attorney Kimberly Ries Ashley referenced a Washington State Supreme Court case, Collier vs. The City of Tacoma, which references sign ordinances as they pertain to freedom of speech.

According to the case, the government has the ability to restrict expressive activity but it’s limited in traditional public forums.

She defined public forums as parks, right-of-ways, streets and sidewalk.

“That is not the city’s property,” she said. “That is the people’s property.”

Ries Ashley said there must be a compelling state interest to restrict freedom of speech.

Under the court case it was ruled that aesthetics are not enough to restrict the placement of signs.

She said if she is not a land owner, she is unable to express her political view under the current and proposed ordinance.

“What if I don’t have anybody that will let me post my sign?” Ries Ashley asked. “Now you’re limiting who can run because only people who either have connections to real property owners and business owners can run. They can’t post on public property. They can’t afford to run campaigns, they can’t afford radio ads and they can’t afford to run (advertisements) in the paper.”

She said the most cost effective way for some people to run for elected office is by posting signs. By prohibiting political signs from public property, it can exclude some candidates.

“I think more research needs to be done,” Ries Ashley said.

She offered to donate her time to help research the issue further and asked the council to research additional case law pertaining to the issue.

Covey said the council would accept her research for consideration.