facts and the and the courts there specifically said well there was really no evidence the parties that really come up with evidence either way and look at the new jersey cases bellaver snappily if they can make an argument to be in all billboards based upon just looking at you ninety five it is not speculative to recognize that billboards by their very nature wherever located and however constructed can be perceived as an aesthetic harm and then it goes on later and so such as that it judgments are necessarily subjective defining objective evaluation and for that reason must be carefully scrutinized to see if they are only a public rationalization of an impermissible purpose but there's no claim in this case that there's an  client interstate that there's enough various speech killing purpose that in the absence of that just as a matter of law billboards can be viewed as an equal an aesthetic harm where it i think is what you're arguing here you've got a study on one side as another side and you're making some at least a moment some very valid i think exacts on some of their studies and some of them are really a proxy for business of the fact if we get to that point then why are we turning fact finders judges and juries into a local legislators and zoning boards because it's then the fact finders it's going to have to weigh the quality of the evidence and determine whether or not he said it's really going to be sufficiently diminished infringement infringement on the noncommercial but never has protected i mean and the and the commercial speech and since with the unavoidable  of your argument is that judges and juries become zoning boards no they don't you're on to the zoning board is responsible for making factual determinations based on certain specific evidence and they have to have the cases talk about plausible bases they talk about reasonable basis they talk about sufficient evidence that's the natural lights and that for media talks about that but i will media talks about it the court considered the city's interest in avoiding visual clutter and seven justices explicitly concluded that this interest was fission to justify prohibition on billboards we reaffirm the conclusion majority and let's review it then you would be taking the position i guess and very same thing that that this is an industrial zone so it's already got problems as well make it any worse i mean that that's then that that sounds like mr cocker setting himself up to replace the judgment of the city planners in the city zoning officials how why why is his different opinion entitle to so much weight that it that it requires a jury trial to decide whether as a matter of fact two ninety five is so bad that can make it worse so i would go back to that even the metromedia case talks about a sufficient basis for all of them now in that case based on those facts and those and it's our position would be is that the they were stipulated that it wasn't it was like after a trial and where the summary judgment stage the court said that they don't like the noncommercial message with god or they're trying to stamp out speech i mean they were careful to say in the absence of evidence of an old theory or motive that inappropriate we're into judgments about aesthetics and those defy objective determination i mean what is the language of metromedia if not saying we're going to give the the governing body the power to make a judgement about what is and isn't aesthetically pleasing for their township but is better medium mean that any aesthetic judgment could possibly be your language from the united states supreme court asking you what what we're to make of it this is the language they're quoting railway express with approval they say it is the judgment of the local authorities that it does have relation that is traffic problems to the to the the thing that's being challenged and nothing has been advance which shows that to be quote palpably false if i have to meet that standard in this case and judge who wouldn't say i have to but if complied with and that's part of our problem to the visual study had to do with a color vision have to have a twenty kind of vision in the forward roadway we complied with that when we did our specific study of the locations the hundred car national national did you know did agree that you could there are less restrictive means because there's other prongs of that test the central hudson test to meet the concerns that they had with regard to is that so needed that believe that would be doing addresses their concern you've got thirty seven studies let's assume that ninety percent of the studies are lousy studies done by people who don't understand statistics in more than i do and therefore f normal good afternoon the right the the one fact that i think is very unique in the first and then noncommercial speech context is is the the the metro media case has been referred out from edenfield that it would be proceeding metromedia there was already enough instances of legislative judgment and you this will decisions that there was no doubt that that that that was a substitute for all well if you read metromedia they do in gage and they're now cis of alternative forms of communication and the context of it is not whether or not you can have a billboard the question is do you have  made by the party making the challenge and of course mount laurel's responses there's nothing in the township worden it's that prohibits advertising in on premises and in that that was the holding in metro me said that that the town went far enough they decided to allow some signs which are on premise signs but to control the sign proliferation issue they said you can have off premise signs and that's that's essentially that's coming right out of metromedia itself on an on a second point if you look at this the specific context here it there's nine towns it's around mt all township five of them are expert report it periphery of melt laurel allow billboards either is a permitted use or a conditional use so that's that's one roman factual piece of evidence that there are alternatives and he his study also showed that route now laurel is traversed by state highway route seventy three and state highway route thirty eight there's eighteen billboards in south jersey on state highway route seventy three in the vicinity and fourteen billboards on route thirty eight now there's there's two billboards in all of mount laurel a town with thousand people and that's because the town twenty five years ago adopted the billboard ban so you know now laurel has planned engaged in the planning of controlling cyprus for ration they've been doing it for a long time and there is alternatives the the bill working company can go to other municipalities the other evidence is that seventy four of the appendix is interstates business itself they have our planner did a study of all the billboards and braun think county and found and we obtained this through discovery that interstate has twenty seven sites of billboards and bronte county and there's thirty six billboards at those twenty seven sites so it's biotic beyond question that that there opportunities to build two to seek billboards you can lobby other municipalities that's an option and with that i guess someone it isn't really relevant to  in the philadelphia case is that the the alternatives the rights of alternatives do not belong to the billboard company it's the right of the advertiser if america wants to put a sign on a billboard what rights do does america health have to advertise and now all township they can advertise in the newspaper they can advertise on the internet there's all kinds of avenues on buses there's there's there's plenty of medium and in in the year two thousand and twelve allow for advertising which which some of which didn't exist in the early one thousand nine hundred eighty three when metromedia was decided so you know i think in a historical context i think they get lost but to me it would seem that i don't work a reflexive that in terms of alternative advertising the record may reflect that the nature of the layout of the highway think if if you lived in mt morrow and there were billboards on two ninety five and what say you took to ninety five to and from work i would think after you drive it three hundred something days a week you'll to now was on the billboard you really  become background music to your ice has no traffic safety issue yeah yeah well it's you know it but there are those who traverse to no i two ninety five who are not from out wall and they may be affected from a traffic stand safety standpoint we presented the studies the quantum of studies and the reason mel moral presented those studies was the the decision in the cherry hill case was the law of the district court of new jersey in two thousand nine and we had now will have to comply with that although it was of the view that we didn't feel it did not believe that it had to supply the stuff so was it a mistake for the district court in this case to come forward with evidence laurel and i think it was a mistake in there and the reason is it and i actually brought the bell case with me because there's an  is right on point in bell the supreme court of new jersey emphasized that that that this particular sign in stafford not only prohibited noncommercial speech  subsequent cases on billboards interprete ing bell they they really impose almost a strict scrutiny type test and least restrictive needs to us now if you read those opinions we think that's wrong the and in response to some questions we are higher now tim said metromedia and i don't i'm sure he'll correct me if i misunderstood but i understood him to be saying you really can't take metromedia mean that aesthetic judgments are are are beyond all question because we have later cases that say you need some evidence is is he right or wrong about that if i've understood him correctly i thought i thought i think that measure media the language of metro media itself on th essentially says it's elementary that billboards by their nature have an ascetic impact so so if there is a legislative judgment by the by the town to say we do not want billboards in our town i think i think the courts need to respect that well if that's true then i have two questions one what do you say in response to mr jermyn his point that there are later cases that seem to imply you do have to come for billboards works in a town like mel laurel where they've kept them out for by zoning for twenty five years and there's only the character of the town is billboard free but if you change the setting let's say tomorrow we what the setting was camden and someone on in the city of camden decided no more billboards and if you drive over the that the the bridges there's all the billboards i mean just just from that sort of background context if the rationale for camden was a statics and if the character of camden was such that there are already exists many billboards well then the a static rationale for character of of the municipality is such that there's already so many billboards that there's just no i just think it's a tougher fight because once you once you allow him and that i think that's if you read the new jersey state court decisions if you have a zone allows billboards they actually are much tougher on the towns in the zones in their particular zones where they don't allow they say we already allow here what why don't you allow is that your menu i think is are these parents are from wrong the character is to go into a site specific analysis there were a problem with that is the seven judges told him he was wrong and that's in that's in the taxpayers for events and it's in several other circuit court decisions that sensually it you don't yeah i mean that that view was rejected that you have to do a site specific analysis to say well where do they want to permit where does the billboard company want to erect the billboards  some very valuable rights here it's commercial speech but it's still a fundamental right and there are the typical deference that you give to miss a pal of these with regard to zoning matters doesn't hold true and so he had a separate basis think city of the city minutes burden of the third prong of the central hudson inquiry by relying on the supreme court's finding in metro media that you can relate a common sense judgment of local law makers and reviewing courts have established that billboards are real and substantial has to traffic safety that finding may substitute for the independent quantum of evidence that the city would otherwise have to put forth to establish that it's regulatory regime these rights when you get right down to it but a couple of other quick points they mentioned the swap out situation and i do want to say there that this is where you could swap out  where they actually put that up with they actually do those sorts of things that is a total sham and that i think we have challenged in our papers we talk about cases where there's a false sense the exxon case the the sprint case in new jersey with the florida case where we talk about for at least commercial speech that's a sham and that that should be considered that should be knocked out again if the supreme court is saying that that's an effective means of  meeting at least the burden for noncommercial speech and then the that the emperor does have doesn't have any clothes by the way we did challenge every single study even the ones of all the studies and i took his their experts as well you know i don't the studies i'm kind of all over the place but he said that there were four studies that he thought were valid and and some of them are the same that the court picked out one we agreed the natural study the hundred car crash study and we c accept what you're saying about the traffic piece of this can you when if the aesthetic piece still stands in your way in other words is it enough for them to say provide alternate look at locations we've invited locations we fight pictures we provided evidence sufficient evidence to say that it's proper here we provided alternate  question do you get the benefit of so many things that because you hired an expert to say i think this billboard looks well here that that deserves to be  over overcoming the judgment of the town fathers and mothers no they don't want a billboard there or it has to has some plausible basis and that's what we're saying and that's what we're saying saying that metromedia