The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1915-03-23
Another Sep For,cord

HVNttE decision OF the supreme court OF llnnois
upholding the constitutionality Of the Chi
cage ordinance forbidding the erection Of bill
boards along streets against the opposition Of a
majority of the adjacent property owners is, says
the Survey Of February Is, "a decision Of ma
tional Importance, as a precedent, because in its
fp1l application It means that municipality can
absolutely prohibit biliboards in residence dis
tricts on unitarian grounds, if it so desires The
requirement Of frontage consent is merely the
grant of privilege to property owners to waive
the right of prohibition of such structures. 1t
would be held discriminatory and demonstrations
al as depriying propertytowners Of their property
without due process Of law. if it were not based
on the right of the municipality to entirely pro-
hibt boards in the districts described This right
necessarily fellows from the decision, and is based
on established law protecting the health, comfort
md security'of citizens, the application OF which
has, however, been broadened to such an extent
that the municipality should be able to exercise
much stricteE regulation than heretofore Va
mo testiHsry was introduced in the case rela-
i've to aesthetic considerations. although the par
ocular board on which the case arose was flag
anty. offensike 20 the public. " - AZ st
The evidet cs showed that fires had been
,tarted from The accumulation Of combustible
material behind ab8ards; that the boards afforded
protection to dh4rderly and lawbreaking persons,
md that residence districts are not so well pro-
ected against fire and crime as business districts
II the city of Chicago; that the darkness behind
>oaJds contributed to immortality, and that filth
md puisances are petmtted to exist in the rear
# surface billboardss (which disseminate diseases,
t appeared also that swomen and children unac-
,ompariied frequent streets in residence districts
more than in other districts. .atssz "a
"The supreme court Held that all these matters
:ould be gone into in determining the reasonable
less of the ordinance, although the lower court
n enjoining the city from removing the board in
question, had shut out some Of this evidence as
| mmateriaf &@4t 4 ..,. T. '~.
THE existing. ordinance in the city of Chicago
vas passed in 1911, and was considerable i'm
| rovement on previous billboard regulations. II
prescribed the character Of construction of the
BOARD, so as to provide PROTECTION from wind and
| ire; caused themato be raised above the ground
hree feet, so that the tear was somewhat visible
md prohibited boards Being erected on the roofs
| If buildings. .i,... n ~ s. ~:
1.-THE immediate effect of this decision, wher
made final will be to allow the building depart
ment to tear down some hundreds Of boards that
lave been erected without such frontage consent.
dnce the ordinance was passed 4 Al retroactive,
ect of the ordinance on boards built prior to its
passage will probably be disputed by the bill
BOARD companies, but 1t Is hoped that the council
with the backing of the decision, will provide
| urther and more comprehensive restrictions"