Court Opinion

ID: 9497590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:55:04.87418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:17.404967
License: Public Domain

FERGUSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the Certification Order for the reason that the Order requests the Oregon Supreme Court to answer questions based on mere speculation.
The District Court held that the plaintiff (“Lombardo”) lacks standing to raise an as-applied challenge against the variance provision of the OMIA. It is clear that he does not have standing. Lombardo admits that he has not applied for a variance. He alleges nothing in his amended complaint that shows that it would be futile to apply for a variance. The variance provision is concerned only with the size and permanency of signs and specifically not with the sign’s message. There is no censorship.
With regard to his due process claim, Lombardo contends that the variance provision is unconstitutional because it lacks adequate safeguards necessary to guard against the suppression of protected speech. Again, the statute specifically states that the content of a sign cannot' be considered in deciding whether to grant a variance.
Variances are granted or denied on the basis of specific fact situations that cannot possibly be enumerated in the variances themselves. This matter has been pending before the federal courts for over six years. Some variance applications may take as long as the courts have. It is possible that the Oregon authorities may delay a variance decision for such a long time that due process is violated, but we can never determine that until we know all the facts.
We should not burden the Oregon Supreme Court with academic questions.