New-York tribune., 1922-03-12
Street Signs to Come
off B uildings on
Leading g Highways
Court Supports Sign Ordi-
nance So Long Deferred;
Order Goes Into Effect OH
Fifth and Madison AYES.

Illuminated signs and signs which
extend more than one foot out from
the front of buildings on Fifth Ave
nue. from Washington Square to 10th
Street; on Madison Avenue from
Thirty-fourth to Seventy second Street,
on Thirtyfourth Street from Fourth
Avenue to Seventh Avenue and on
Fifty seventh Street from Lexington
Avenue to Broadway, except those on
theaters. must come down.
They were ordered down four years
ago by the Commissioner of Public
Works in accord with the sign ordi-
nance which had been passed about
that time by the Board of Aldermen.
Some owners refused to comply, ex-
planning that the order was discrimi-
natory and had the court halt the city
authorities. The case finally came be
fore Justice Davis in the Supreme
Court, who has ruled in favor the
city and against the continuation Of
projecting signs.
The question involved was the con-
stltutlonality of the sign ordinance.
which was urged by the Fifth Avenue
Association, at the request of property
owners, and passed by the Board Of
Aldermen in 1916. Justice Davis saws
the ordinance is Constitutional, which
means that the order interrupted bv
the lnJunctions of several years ago
now goes into operation. 1t also means
that other sections of the city may
be renewed OF the multitude of signs
which hang over neighborhood busi-
ness streets.
The original ordinance affected Fifth
Avenue alone. On December %. 1920.
at the request of the Fifth Avenue
Association, this ordinance was extend
ed by the Board of Aldermen to Madi-
son Avenue, Thirty fourth Street and
FIFTY seventh Street. A provision was
contained in this ordinance reyok;ng
the licenses for all illuminated signs,
irrespective of the date of erection
after December 23, 1921. In addition
an amendment was made to this ordi-
nahce on December 16, 1921, excepting
IRON, atoh the provisions of the ordinance.
illuminated signs existing upon thea,
ters or other places of amusement on
December Is, 1921"
Justice Davis's decision. in mart vas
as follows: f'' "A'
me tlrst contention of the plaintiffs.
that the. ordinances are unconstitu.
tonal because they discriminate
against people located on the
s.Pec1hed streets and avenues in
favor of all other localities in
the CITY. cannot he uoheld. 1t is dis
posed : of by the failure of the plain
tiffs to allege any facts in the com
plants which, if true, would tend to
show that the ordinances were arb;-
trary. or unreasonable and unlawfullv
al lscrimlnatory against all other locoli-
tles IN the city. Their real grievance
Is that the streets named have been set
apart from all other streets of the citv
az: as areas within which there shall be NJ,
Illuminated signs. There is no doubt
mat advertising by illuminated signs is
penehcial to business. At the same
time the multiplication of those out
standing signs in this very busy sec
tlon OF the city easily can become an
eyesore, nuisance and an imprope.
use OF the air space over the thorough
fares. We may assume that the Board
OF Aldermen before passing this re-
strlctive ordinance gave due considera-
ton to the interests of those thereto
tore maintaining illuminated signs on
Street and that the ordi-
nance was adopted as the result of its
deliberate judgment that tne ut. 80,
comfort and convenience Of the public
demanded it.