Court Opinion

ID: 9773368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:43:21.449933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:52.903513
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, concurring. Although I agree with the results the majority reached, I do not agree with all the reasoning or principles in the majority opinion. First, the city’s attempt by ordinance to regulate flashing signs is a proper exercise of government authority. This regulation is directly related to public safety and the cost to property owners in removing flashing signs is not relevant. Springfield v. City of Little Rock, 226 Ark. 462, 290 S.W. 2d 620 (1956). Second, the ordinance regulating nonconforming signs and requiring their alteration or removal within seven years is valid on its face. A city has an obligation and duty to regulate any use of property that adversely affects the public. I am convinced that the great majority of cases will involve nominal, if any, expense in altering or removing signs to conform to the ordinance. However, this is a presumption that cannot be a blanket to cover every particular sign in existence at the time the ordinance is passed. In this case, these property owners offered evidence that they would be out a considerable amount of money if they had to alter or remove the signs. This evidence was not refuted by the city, and I have no alternative but to find on these facts the ordinance will amount to taking property without compensation in violation of the constitution. Art. 2, §§ 2 & 22, Constitution of Arkansas. The regulation of signs by cities is long overdue and I believe the ordinance before this court is a reasonable effort to correct the problem within a reasonable period of time. However, the city cannot presume that the enforcement of this ordinance against existing signs will in every instance be successful. The provision for amortization is, of course, a novelty in the law and the use of this ordinance will not in every case solve all of the sign problems that have accumulated through the years. The city must use good judgment and reason in enforcing the ordinance and be prepared in certain instances to offer evidence that a property owner’s claim of damages is incorrect. However, if the courts find a property owner will be damaged to a substantial degree, then the owner’s sign will have to stand or be removed by other lawful means.