Orange Fined for Failure to Allow Billboards

A federal judge fined the City of Orange $10,000 Monday for failing to obey his September order to allow 11 billboards to be erected--and will tack on $1,000 for each day the city continues not to comply.

U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. in Los Angeles found the city in contempt and gave officials 10 days to decide whether to appeal the ruling or pay the fine and begin processing the permits filed by National Advertising Co.

The Illinois company has applied to the city for permits to erect 11 billboards in commercial and industrial areas along the Orange Freeway and on Chapman and Tustin avenues.

City officials had imposed a ban on all billboards, and the advertising firm challenged that law in a July, 1985, lawsuit. Last August, Hatter held that the law was unconstitutional because it violated First Amendment guarantees of free speech.

The city then convened a hearing and denied the permits because they violated a sign ordinance that limits size and location. City attorneys then appealed the ruling and went as far as asking the U.S. Supreme Court to set it aside. Last week, the high court refused to hear the case and Hatter’s order to process the permits was brought back into question.

Gary Mobley, an attorney for National Advertising, argued that the sign ordinance was never meant to affect billboards, but rather signs outside shops. “If you applied (those standards), you would essentially be banning billboards again,” Mobley said. He said Hatter didn’t specifically say that in his decision Monday but simply ordered the city to process the permits.

City Atty. Furman B. Roberts and other officials declined to comment Monday. But attorney Bradley C. Withers, who has been hired by the city to assist on the case, said the city wants to regulate billboards because the signs pose aesthetic as well as safety and traffic control problems. He added that numerous residents have declared their opposition to the structures, some as large as 1,200 square feet.

Withers said he believes that there has been no violation of the First Amendment and that cities have the right to regulate billboards as a form of communication. In some cases, he said, “total prohibition” is appropriate.

In any case, Withers said, Monday’s ruling does not set a precedent for billboard firms, which face bans and strict regulations in many cities. “I would say it’s just a step in the process,” he said, adding, “You should realize that the court’s ruling is not going to result in any published decision that will affect other cases.”

But the advertising firm’s attorney argued that the fine will have a significant impact. Mobley said the billboard has been recognized as a legitimate form of communication as far back as the Civil War.

Hatter also granted the advertising firm’s request to have the city pay its attorney fees Monday, and another hearing will be held to decide what amount is appropriate. The company’s lawsuit includes a request for damages of $3 million. That phase of the lawsuit is still pending, Mobley said.