ORANGE COUNTY PERSPECTIVE : Not Buying ‘For Sale’ Ordinance

They’re a familiar sight along El Toro Road and Alicia Parkway in South County and 17th Street in North Tustin: rows of automobiles whose owners hope to sell them without going to the expense of taking out an advertisement. The California Highway Patrol says that these impromptu used-car lots cause motorists to gawk and make unsafe turns. Others complain that they are unsightly. In response, the Orange County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday adopted an ordinance banning “for sale” signs on automobiles in unincorporated areas.

But in doing so, the board took a wrong turn. The appropriate way to control these free-markets-on-wheels is to focus on traffic laws, and not impose a blanket restriction on posting signs.

Several years ago, a state appeals court, ruling in a case involving a Berkeley city ordinance banning “for sale” signs on automobiles, accused the city of trying to use “a meat cleaver approach where a scalpel is required.”

The court said the city had a legitimate interest in aesthetics, but that the ordinance was too broad in banning automobile “for sale” signs, “which are in no way a threat to municipal charm.” It also said that traffic and parking laws were the appropriate way to cure problems of congestion. While falling short of declaring a ban on such signs unconstitutional, the court said that such bans impaired the flow of truthful and legitimate commercial information. The same is true for Orange County’s ordinance.

The county should first try to regulate the problem created in these congested areas by adopting appropriate traffic laws. If that doesn’t work, it should take the least restrictive approach. Some cities, for example, require city council resolutions for owners who want to display “for sale” sign on vehicles. Others allow cars to be sold only in appropriately zoned areas. Those are better solutions than a blanket rule that restricts the free flow of information.