gronberg@heraldsun.com; 419-6648
DURHAM -- A downtown developer wants the City Council to repeal the provision of Durham's land-use law that allows political candidates to post yard signs in the public right of way.
The request came late last week from Rob Griffin, director of asset management for Scientific Properties.
The company is responsible for several downtown redevelopment projects, among them the Venable Center on South Roxboro Street.
Griffin said in an e-mail to elected officials that for two mornings in a row, he'd found signs in the right of way adjacent to the Venable, close enough to the building to give passers-by the impression that Scientific Properties and its tenants were endorsing a candidate.
But the company tries to "remain neutral on political advertising" because it works with city officials on its developments, and has city departments and federal courts as tenants, he said.
Some tenants also object, he said.
"It is an undue burden for a landlord to have to educate tenants on city policies regarding sign placement in order to calm tenants who may take these signs as our endorsement of candidates the tenant may not support," Griffin said.
He said if the city doesn't ban right-of-way postings, it should at least give adjoining landlords veto rights over sign placements, given that they oftentimes still own the property underlying the right of way.
Griffin's ban-them stance is drawing support from one councilman, Eugene Brown. He wrote back to note that officials in Denver -- where his brother serves in elective office -- ban right-of-way postings outright.
"There is legally no reason why we should allow political signs, including mine, to visually pollute our city," Brown said in a message to Griffin and the council.
But City Attorney Patrick Baker was skeptical Thursday about the city's ability to act on the request.
"It is a free-speech issue, and that's why you see these things pop up all over the place," Baker said. "I know folks don't like them, or some people don't."
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1994 said it's unconstitutional for cities, towns and counties to ban yard signs on private property.
But the court in 1984 upheld a Los Angeles ordinance that barred sign placements on public property, holding they were not a "uniquely valuable or important mode of communication."
The justices specified, however, that any such restrictions had to be "content neutral."
Justice John Paul Stevens, who remains on the court, authored both opinions.
The city might have trouble meeting the content-neutrality test because it does allow some other types of signs in the right of way.
The staff attorney for the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, Katherine Parker, said she didn't want to comment on the matter without looking into the specifics of Durham's situation.
"I'd have to see the ordinance and do some research," she said.
