probably not the last but in my case i believe i have found a distinction that has not been addressed previously by this court the city has alleged that there is zoning regulation or restrictions on signs of based upon a statics and traffic safety they then turn around and exempt themselves and their tenants from those very same sign restrictions that they impose on private landlords adjacent to the same par and i submit that that's going ordinance doesn't apply to the parks doesn't know extent they've taken themselves out of it but that's a function of state law is not not a function of state law if it impinges upon the first amendment state law says that you don't have sone ordinances within state parks because the common good it's common but this there's nothing stopping them from regulating sign content or anything else they still have the right to do those regulations ok but they don't have the right to do is say it's ok for me but it's not ok that's what happened to clear channel tune clear channel it was ok for you for amtrak and it was ok for the m t a the reason why it is ok for them is they were state statutes that allowed amtrak and well i would beg to differ with you that that was the only reason i  i understand your honor but there was also this particular issue was carved out of the of the clear channel case and never addressed the city's not regulating sign content inside parks where i regulate some outside state park outside parks and if i may in are if you take a look at at the record if you take a look specifically at the pictures and photographs of the signs that we have to see a two sixty five a three thirty five you can see th signs of a very very large very distracting as you pass by an arterial highways the scale of the city has a sliding scale for how big a sign can be based upon its distance from the city have a legitimate reason but making the construction project within the park commercially viable to allow advertising on it without violating your client's rights if the city gives itself the same the right to do something it does takes away from everybody else no and that's the problem and it's a simple differentiation that makes it illegal i think prefer in the government's preferred speakers of speech as opposed to private speak as a speech is where it runs afoul of the first amendment notwithstanding the economic  economic necessity of it there's no indication the city considered the affects of a signs of private landlords adjacent to the parks as if as having any negative impact on the si inside the park there were two separate tracks a city on the took one regulating signs and quite frankly they pretty much regulated those out there were signs out of existence if you drive down the b q we'll you drive down the long run expressway you can see the bones of the former signs there they just look like that just like a graveyard going by when before you had you had for the most part you had attractive interesting signs the city may not agree but i can't see how allowing some signage along the roadways would defeat the city's purposes of having allowing sign per signs inside city parks to benefit it's on its tenants it's the complete exemption of the city from similar restrictions over signage in locations that's the problem that impacts a first  say this new york city is a big place and this is the only example of exceptional treatment which you're able to find through i know you know you're on a if i may time square look at the entirety of the times square area that's a  federal under federal that's considered a media highway and it should be subject to the same restrictions on size and everything else that they apply to signs along other i terrio hallways but there are no restrictions on those signs they have if you go in times square any time of the day and i actually sight in in my brief a video showing what times square's like those signs of justice are worse than the signs my clients had up along the highways that are not allowed to my client but they're allowed to the city again if it but if the city's position regulation is unconstitutional for central hudson purposes and under inclusive grounds and that's seems to be what you're arguing only when it materially defeats the whole scheme and it seems to me that your argument is that if unless the city  the same throughout the city we're dealing with a constitutional regulate regulatory scheme and that can't be right i'm not exactly saying that you're on a what i am saying is that it's a convenient excuse the city uses to take away the rights of private landlords to use their property the way they want to by having advertising signs and things like that where in the similar circumstance of city finds nothing wrong with it when the city agrees with this is a government that sponsoring certain types of speech that it likes as opposed to allowing other people  ve the free marketplace dictate what other part times of speech should be out there and that the that is the i think is the essence what i'm talking about they've set up an unfair competition for themselves they can have advertising signs on their property my clients can't have it on the can they can put up signs i didn't i haven't i have you know i was in central park this morning i didn't see a single advertising sign in central park central park in central park right so the city doesn't do it everywhere doesn't they do it in many places your own answer my question though they didn't do it in such a park they don't do it necessary at every place and in some places they only they live accessory signs you know it's not everywhere as it is i was ever there i said they were the city does it your own so for example times square is a use that as an example herald square against signage all over the place so it accessory some of it's not accessory parts it's there are trivial highways though your own signings allowed for some other reason that i don't think was in the record well i would suspect that bryant park would the question is if the limitations are on our tear on signage with an aerial highways and and within a certain distance of certain things that should apply all across the board but the only part problem that you raise is the ball field the reason for that when you're on is because my client one of my clients actually has a space not far from the ballpark it's like a stone issue yes sort of thing but not exactly because my client if you take a look at many of these billboards that are no longer there my clients actually own those billboards and the label to use them and so it's more than just a stone in the foot it's unfair to them for the apple these this appeal raises an issue that was directly presented to this court in two thousand and ten and was to projected then the question is is the city's ban arterial advertising billboard looked at those regulations and you said the existence of several exceptions did not make it on constitutional this is a case that just presents one other exception that's all it is the issues the legal issues are exactly the same what they've done is they've come in with one new exception that wasn't part of that case and said as applied against us this is now on constitutional that is not the case the single exception that exists on the met stadium cannot as a matter of law make the entire regulation unconstitutional it's in force meant the standard for unconstitutional under inclusive it he has this court knows there has to be arbitrary district distinctions that undermining counteract the state objectives of the law the law has to be so pierced by exemptions and inconsistency that there's little chance that it can and that it can serve its purposes clear channel really covers this case in its entirety the court there looked at this and said the city's interest in aesthetics and traffic safety perfectly legitimate the few exceptions that the court looked at there said these do not undermine the purpose of the law the law still directly advance there's really no distinction in this case here there is a single we've discussed a public trust doctrine here i think that you're you ask questions about and you understand it the city cannot go and erect a bill boards all over it parks parks are on zone that doesn't mean that the city can erect billboards the public trust doctrine covers that we have a single legislative instance here where there is a legislative and backman which allows the city to do it on the met stadium that single exception does not undermine the law to make it so hundred feet of a park it is not i don't know about i don't know this federal suppose that federal regulation that makes an arterial highway but it's not a natural highway under the city's laws also times square and you can look at the original clear channel decision which discuss the how times square has been carved out of this because it's a special zoning area that is actually they want they want people to build big big big billboards there because it's a tourist attraction is understood this is a special place where large illuminated billboards are supposed to be so it's a very different category i think that there's something else to bring up here which is as a factual issue the only sign that is referenced by my adversary his complaint is this one that's in willits park very near the me n park that is not even a sign that was regulated under the under the zoning resolution code that's been challenged here they sought an accessory sign which is a sign for on premises advertising something that was there there never was they never asked for an advertising sign they were never barred from a record in an advertising sign due to these regulations they probably would be if they did if they did it but what we have here is them applying for an accessory you sign that was denied because the poll they wanted didn't fit the rest of  resolution so i think that it's an important part of this case that even the as applied challenge they have fails as to that sign if there's no further question i think this court is well aware can i just ask this wasn't really prominent the briefing but there has been a decision by the supreme court read the town of gilbert since we wrote clear channel is there a reason for us to think about writing in this case  to discuss read and its application in this context i don't think that this is a case where the court should get into that area first or hasn't really been briefed i think it's complicated i also think that this court post read has continued to apply the central hodgson test also read it is really i think a different case because it dealt with and applying essential to hudson tests since then we've done that principally in summary orders you  don't believe that's true i believe that there are there are presidential opinions that have applied central hudson in and maybe i'm thinking more along a post sorel and maybe not post read as so that's possible that i'm thinking pre read posts or l but but but read is very different read deals with the noncommercial speech it deals with what it found was content base regulation this is not content based regulation clear channel directly says that so i think this is a different case i don't think this is the right case to go to to delve into that particular cause it just hasn't been addressed very much thank you congress respectfully disagree with opposing counsel that read because i did brief its mentioned in my in my brief and quite frankly i quoted from the supreme court in that case i said a law that is content based on its face is subject to strict scrutiny regardless of the government's  content neutral a justification or a lack of animus towards the idea contained in the regulate speech the city distinguishes between accessory signs and ever ties excites that is content based right on its face advertising signs relate to signs advertising business not at the princes and accessory sign represents advertising for stuff on the premises metromedia  f new york is pretty good said the fact that the city may value commercial messages relating to onsite goods and services more than in values commercial communications relating to offsite goods and services does not justify prohibiting an occupant from displaying same issue here they treat accessory signs differently treat not excessive signs and all of the signs of city feel with the exception maybe the sign the city fields are not on our advertising sides are not accessories thank you