Court Opinion

ID: 9596066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:45:52.468464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:32.071406
License: Public Domain

Benham, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
Because I am persuaded that the vegetation control program at issue here serves valid state interests and does not constitute an un*26constitutional grant of a gratuity, I must dissent to the majority’s invalidation of the regulation governing the program. While recognizing that state action which benefits private parties is not an unconstitutional gratuity so long as there is a substantial benefit to be derived by the State or its citizens (Smith v. Bd. of Commrs., 244 Ga. 133, 141 (259 SE2d 74) (1979)), Garden Club and the majority take the position that the only benefit to be derived from the tree-trimming program is the benefit the advertisers get from having their signs made visible. That position ignores the public policy of this state, as expressed by the legislature in the laws regulating outdoor advertising along the state’s highways, supporting the presence of advertising of “goods and services in the specific interest of the traveling public. . . .” See OCGA §§ 32-6-72 (4-6) and 32-6-73 (4). The phrase, “in the specific interest of the traveling public,” is defined in OCGA § 32-6-71 (23) as “information regarding places offering lodging, food, motor vehicle fuels and lubricants, motor vehicle service and repair facilities, or any other service or product available to the general public.” The breadth of the concluding phrase in that provision, “any other service or product available to the general public,” indicates a legislative determination that all advertising aimed at the general public is in the interest of the traveling public. I conclude from that statement of public policy that the presence of signs advertising services and products constitutes a benefit to the traveling public on this state’s highways and that action which renders such advertising visible is likewise of benefit to the traveling public. Because I cannot countenance as the public policy of this state the destruction of a major part of a legitimate industry, I must dissent.
Decided November 6, 1995 —
Reconsideration denied December 4, 1995.
Douglas P. Haines, Eric E. Huber, for appellants.
Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Carol A. Callaway, George P. Shingler, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees.
S. Wesley Woolf, Schreeder, Wheeler & Flint, David H. Flint, Mark W. Forsling, amici curiae.
I am authorized to state that Justice Carley joins in this dissent.