Opinion ID: 218050
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lax Safety Enforcement

Text: Plaintiff further argues that the City's concern about the safety of supergraphic signs is merely a guise for favoring some speakers over others: Vanguard has demonstrated that there is simply no logical reason to conclude that the same supergraphics appearing outside a City-carved SUD are more dangerous (or more distracting) that similarly situated supergraphic signs that are found within an SUD. (Mot. 25.) Of course, this contention fails for the same reason Plaintiff's challenge to the City's supergraphic sign ban fails, that is, because the City is permitted to create SUDs, the act of allowing billboards in SUDs also passes constitutional muster. Nevertheless, Plaintiff appears to be mounting an attack on the City's enforcement of safety rules directly related to the civil and criminal actions against Plaintiff in state court. To be frank, most of Plaintiffs arguments in support of this point are inscrutable. From what the Court can glean, Plaintiff offers only five photographs of signs it claims are violating the same safety rules it has been cited for, but that have not also been cited. (Anderson Decl., Exs. 8-9, 13, 19-20.) Beyond that, Plaintiff appears to be attempting to litigate in this Court the safety issues involved in the state-court proceeding. The Court declines to wade into that dispute and finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the City's safety enforcement record against other sign companies demonstrates a pretext for discrimination against Plaintiff for exercising its speech rights. At most, the City may not be enforcing the safety regulations against all sign companies at all times, but that alone does not create an inference of invidious discrimination. Town of Atherton v. Templeton, 198 Cal.App.2d 146, 155, 17 Cal. Rptr. 680 (Ct.App.1961) (laxity of enforcement alone is insufficient to demonstrate a violation of equal protection); see also People ex rel. Dept. of Pub. Works v. Golden Rule Church Ass'n, 49 Cal.App.3d 773, 777, 122 Cal.Rptr. 596 (Ct.App.1975) (rejecting billboard owner's discriminatory enforcement argument because, [e]ven if it were assumed that other known violators have not been prosecuted, this factor alone would not establish the existence of illegal discrimination.). Plaintiff has not raised serious questions on this claim.