Court throws out Seattle ban over posters on utility poles

By Jim Brunner
Seattle Times staff reporter
August 8, 2002

An appeals court has ripped down Seattle's poster ban, ruling that utility poles are a "traditional public forum" protected by the state constitution.

In a decision issued Monday, the state Court of Appeals reversed a lower court and struck down the 1994 ordinance, which prohibits anyone (except government agencies) from affixing posters or handbills to utility poles and other city-owned properties.

The ordinance, sponsored by former City Councilwoman Jane Noland, was aimed at cutting down on unsightly poles plastered with layers of posters. It allowed the city to charge violators with the cost of removing the posters.

In 1999, Seattle sued Mighty Movers, a small moving company, to recover $7,870 for the time city workers spent removing about 130 of its posters. The company refused to pay and challenged the ban as unconstitutional.

The three-judge panel this week unanimously sided with Mighty Movers, noting the city's long tradition of using the poles as a "public forum."

While the city might have a "compelling government interest" in placing some restrictions on posters, the total ban "is not narrowly tailored" and "therefore sweeps within its grasp, constitutionally protected speech," the ruling said.

The judges mocked the city's contention it had provided an alternative to the poles by putting up 11 kiosks for posters.

"One cannot say with a straight face that the City's installation of 11 kiosks is an adequate replacement in a city of this size for the multitude of poles that have been used for posting," said the ruling, written by Judge Marlin Appelwick.

A spokeswoman for City Attorney Tom Carr said the city had not decided whether to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

She said attorneys would consult with the City Council and mayor before making a decision.

Mighty Movers co-owner Randy Rae said he was pleased with the legal victory.

"I don't think the posters are a problem," he said, noting that he had relied on them as cheap advertising.

The poster ban was the latest in a string of controversial ordinances backed by former City Attorney Mark Sidran to suffer legal setbacks in recent years.

Courts have also criticized or struck down Sidran-backed ordinances targeting rowdy music clubs and allowing police to impound the cars of drivers with suspended licenses.

Music promoters hailed the most recent ruling, which knocked down an ordinance they'd fought from the beginning.

"It's sad that they (city leaders) have been willing to trample on the constitution for aesthetics," said David Meinert, a local music promoter.

The poster ban muted what had been a popular way for local bands to get out the word about upcoming shows.

But promoters were better at putting the posters up than taking them down. In the early 1990s, some neighborhoods had poles wrapped in several layers of posters and handbills, and critics argued the mess was getting out of hand. Utility workers complained that the staples and nails were a safety hazard.

Opponents of the poster ban continue to dismiss the safety concerns. City Councilman Nick Licata said yesterday he had never seen any evidence the posters posed a real danger to workers.

But Rod Siverson, manager of north electrical services and construction for Seattle City Light, said the nails and staples in utility poles do sometimes cut line workers and make it harder for them to climb the poles.

"I would hope people would understand this really happens," Siverson said. "I like the ban. I like it for the fact that it's a safety issue."

Jim Brunner can be reached at 206-515-5628 or jbrunner@seattletimes.com.