Opinion ID: 1822350
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal and State Regulation of the Location of Billboards

Text: The tenor of the Commissioner's decision is that federal and state laws strictly prohibit the placement of billboards, with only narrow exceptions that are within the Commissioner's discretion. This is not my view of the law. Federal and state billboard laws provide reasonable, not strict, regulation of the location of billboards. Those laws value both the need for highway safety and beautification and the legitimate role of billboards in our economy. They specifically permit billboards to be located in appropriate areas and they grant discretion to local zoning authorities, not to the Commissioner.
Federal law is focused on the regulation, not the prohibition, of billboards. While the purpose of the FHBA is to protect the public investment in such highways, to promote the safety and recreational value of public travel, and to preserve natural beauty, the mechanism chosen by Congress was not to directly control the erection of billboards, but to provide incentives to the states by conditioning the payment of ten percent of a state's share of federal-aid highway funds on that state's exercise of its powers to effectively control the erection of billboards. 23 U.S.C. § 131(a), (b) (2000). A state is deemed to have exercised effective control so long as it restricts the erection of billboards to adjacent areas that are zoned industrial or commercial under [the] authority of State law. Id. § 131(d). Policies adopted by the Federal Highway Administration, pursuant to the FHBA, provide that an adjacent area is considered to have been zoned commercial and industrial if it is within a district that is most appropriate for commerce, industry, or trade, regardless of how labeled. 23 C.F.R. § 750.703(a) (2003). I conclude from this that the federal government is not concerned with the individual actions of municipalities allowing or denying the erection of billboards, but only with the systems implemented by states to regulate the erection of billboards. Further, although a state regulatory system could lawfully be more restrictive than that specified by federal law, the federal law makes it clear that a state will not forfeit federal-aid highway funds by allowing billboards in zoning districts that are appropriate for commerce, industry or trade. Finally, the federal law instructs that states are not to focus on the zoning labels used to describe a district, but upon its appropriate use for commercial, industrial or trade purposes. Specifically, the policies of the Federal Highway Administration support the view that the use of the PF zoning label does not determine whether a municipal golf course satisfies the federal criteria for the erection of bill-boards. Indeed, MNDOT's grant of the permit to the Lost Spur Golf Course demonstrates that the PF label is not fatal.
Minnesota's Act was enacted to comply with the terms of the FHBA, presumably to prevent any forfeiture of ten percent of federal-aid highway funding. Minn.Stat. ch. 173 (2002). Although Minnesota's declaration of policy essentially adopts the federal goals (to promote the general welfare of the people and to conserve the natural beauty of areas adjacent to certain highways), it also recognizes the positive contribution of billboards (inasmuch as outdoor advertising is an integral part of the business and marketing function, an established segment of the national economy, and a legitimate commercial use of property adjacent to roads and highways, it should be allowed to operate where other business and commercial activities are conducted   ). Minn.Stat. § 173.01 (2002). To that end, Minnesota's regulation allows billboards to be located in business areas. Minn.Stat. § 173.08, subd. 1(8) (2002). Business areas are defined to mean any part of an adjacent area which is (a) zoned for business, industrial or commercial activities under the authority of any law of this state or any political subdivision thereof;   . Minn.Stat. § 173.02, subd. 17 (2002). I conclude from this that Minnesota has recognized that the federal criteria for permitting billboards does not require that the zoning label be either commercial or industrial. In fact, from Minnesota's broader statement of purpose, and its choice of the broad term business areas, I infer the intent to (1) be as permissive as the federal criteria allows and (2) focus on the use of the property, not on its ownership. There is no suggestion in this record that Minnesota's regulatory system, including its focus on business areas, fails to provide effective control of the erection and maintenance    of outdoor advertising signs, within the meaning of the FHBA. Accordingly, the precise question presented is whether the language by which the Minnesota legislature has exercised control of billboards permits the erection of billboards on a municipally owned golf course that has been zoned as a PF.