|
BUSINESS IMPACT ESTIMATE FORM
<br />Posted To Webpage on
<br />This Business Impact Estimate is given as it relates to the proposed ordinance titled:
<br />AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SUNNY ISLES BEACH,
<br />FLORIDA, REPEALING CHAPTER 227 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
<br />SUNNY ISLES BEACH, ENTITLED "SIGNS, TEMPORARY POLITICAL,” AND CHAPTER 265,
<br />ARTICLE IX, §265-63, ENTITLED "TEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNS;" REPEALING AND
<br />REPLACING CHAPTER 265, ARTICLE IX, §265-57, ENTITLED "TEMPORARY SIGNS;"
<br />AMENDING CHAPTER 265, ARTICLE IX, §265-51, §265-52, §265-55, §265-56 TO CONFORM
<br />TO EXISTING LAW AND TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USE AND
<br />DISPLAY OF TEMPORARY SIGNS; RENUMBERING CHAPTER 265, ARTICLE IX, §265-63.1,
<br />§265-63.2, AND §265-63.3; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION,
<br />AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
<br />Part 1.
<br />Summary of the proposed ordinance and statement of public purpose:
<br />Temporary signs have become excessive, and many temporary signs are distracting and dangerous
<br />to motorists and pedestrians, are confusing to the public, and do not relate to the premises on
<br />which they are located, which substantially detracts from the beauty, appearance, and appeal of
<br />the city. Adoption of this ordinance will ensure the temporary sign regulations effectively balance
<br />legitimate business and development needs with a safe and aesthetically attractive environment
<br />for residents and visitors, while also ensuring the protection of free speech rights.
<br />In 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in Reed v. Town of Gilbert ,
<br />(2015), wherein it held, that the First Amendment mandates that governmental entities cannot
<br />single out any topic or subject matter for differential treatment in its sign regulations, even if such
<br />regulations do not target or regulate viewpoint or specific content. The Court further opined
<br />that its ruling in Reed does not preclude government entities from enacting and enforcing
<br />reasonable sign regulations, which may include, but are not limited to, non-discriminatory and
<br />neutral regulations, such as limits on size, quantity, placement, location, lighting, and digitization,
<br />and that such regulations are valid to protect public safety and serve legitimate aesthetic
<br />objectives. The Court further opined that "in addition to regulating signs put up by private actors,
<br />government entities "may put up all manner of signs to promote safety, as well as directional signs
<br />and signs pointing out historic sites and scenic spots."
<br />121
<br />
|