New-York tribune., 1902-04-16
7BF QUESTION OF "SKY SIGNS"

c-ornora4ion Counsel Rives has given an
/ oninion on the subject of billboard regulation
,r1ich indicates A most dtscOuraging adherence
| IN nurcrown theories of private property rlsht
and an astonishing unwillingness TO give the
utmost aid possible to those who are trying 10
abolish nuisances and make our city more beau
tiful. He says:
The Board of Aldermen is not given power 10
prohibit the erection of what are called SKY
signs" and the existence OF such a power Is mo- no.
in my opinion. necessarily lmpned- crulldIils
a person owning a building has the right 10 put
on top Of II whatever he pleases, ana II "ou!u
be an unwarrantable interference with the no
a~+, IF the citizers if the Board of Aldermen had
the power to prohibit the erection or such Signs
This doctrine that man may build as ne
likes on his own land, it is to be noted. Is not
taken with reference to any possible lack ol
mower in the Board of Aldermen under the
charter 1t is assumed that such regulation
would be an unwarrantable interference Win
liberty and in that case. of course, the State
legislature could not authorize the reSulatlon'
if perchance up 10 the present time II mas Ialleu
70 do so Such a view ignores the progress of
q quarter of q century in the abatement ol
nuisances and in the restraint upon the unde-
srable use of private property. II a man can
do what he Will with the top of his building
how is it that building laws frequently restrict
the height of structures. and in many cities
purely on aesthetic grounds or with a view TO
the general comfort, as when proporuonng the
height of buildings to the width of streets? In
England where the law protects property
rights with extreme conservatism SKY signs
are forbidden. and in this State ordinances OF
the cities of Rochester and Buffalo restricting
tbe size of billboards erected on private prop
erty have been upheld in the courts. In pass
ing upon the validity of the Rochester ordinance
limiting the height of billboards to SIX feet
Justice Adams in the Appellate Division said:
II ts q fact so patent that judicial notice may
fairly be taken of its existence that the modern
system of advertising by posters is such that
one can hardly pass along the streets OF any
large town without being compelled TO gaze
upon advertisements which enormous IN
size and not infrequently offensive in their
character.
He conceded that there was no evidence in
that case that the billboards were improperly
used. but nevertheless he affirmed the power Of
the city to restrain and regulate the use OF prl
yate property to subserve the health and COM
fort Of the citizens. The Court of Appeals
affirmed this decision. and Judge Martin de-
cIared the obvious right Of the city, even
though no injury had occurred or was likely TO
occur from a particular billboard. to forbid its
erection except in accordance with a plan de-
signed to keep within limits what might be a
danger and a nuisance Sky signs may become
not merely an aesthetic nuisance and an injury
to the appearance and so to the attractiveness
and prosperity OF the city. but also a positive
danger. because Of their liability to be blown
down bv storms or to interfere with the work
of firemen. If the city may say that man
shall not build a wooden or iron billboard of
certain character on his own lot fronting the
street-and the Court Of Appeals says 1t may
il is difficult to see why it may not forbid him
to build a similar board up fifty feet in the air
over that same lot
Possibly century ago such restriction upon
the use of private property was not admitted,
but, as Justice Kruse in the Buffalo case has
said: THAT the legislature has such power
think is no longer debatable question since
1.-The decision of the Court of Appeals in the
lease Of the City Of Rochester VS.. West" Per
hans the New-York City charter does not give
the Board of Aldermen specific power to regu-
late signs, but there can be no question that
the CITY could receive such power without I'M
warrantahle invasion Of private rights. 1t is
Just as proper for the common interest to regu-
late blboards ON top Of houses as on the
ground, and just proper to say where on
the ground or in the air they are a nuisance
and so entirely prohibited: and if the city
authorities cannot adopt such regulations now
they should receive power to do 1t at the next
session Of the legislature