Fireworks Container Sign is OK and Meijer Sign is Illegal

In March 2017, Cheboygan County’s Community Development Department Director Steve Schnell issued a press release. No, he was not working toward the creation of new businesses, homes, jobs, or any type of economic growth. He was attempting to limit your rights to free speech on your own property. 

This Sign is OK in Indian River
One Part-Time Out of Town Employee

This Sign is Illegal in Cheboygan
250 Full and Part-Time Local Employees

He stated ”The recent Supreme Court case of Reed v Town of Gilbert clarified the extent to which signs must be content neutral. A content neutral sign regulation is one that does not regulate the content of a sign to determine compliance with the ordinance. In other words, a sign can say basically (sic) anything that the owner would like to express on that sign without any local laws regulating whether it is or is not legal. A regulation can only determine where that sign can be placed, how big the sign is, how many signs can be on each property, and similar non-content regulations.”

Mr Schnell’s treatise seemed ignorant of the fact the 2015 Supreme Court case Reed v Town of Gilbert was a court decision based on the content, or message conveyed, on signs placed on public property. Clyde Reed was the pastor of Good News Community Church; described as a small, cash-strapped entity that held services in elementary schools and other buildings in Gilbert, Arizona. Pastor Clyde’s church would place 15 to 20 temporary signs on street corners on a Saturday advertising the location of the Sunday worship services and remove them on Sunday. The Town of Gilbert, an Arizona boomtown that grew by more than 200,000 people from 1980 to 2010, was legitimately attempting to limit the clutter created by hundreds of temporary signs placed on the streets. The Town of Gilbert discriminated against the Good News Community Church by regulating event-based signs differently than commercial businesses.

Unlike Cheboygan County’s Community Development Department, Gilbert had zoning jurisdiction over their public streets and roads. MDOT and the Cheboygan County Road Commission control our public road right of ways outside of incorporated Villages and the City of Cheboygan. The Supreme Court decision clarified Cheboygan County could not discriminate against signs based on the content or the message printed on the sign.

A prior Supreme Court sign decision, City of Ladue et al v Gilleo, back in 1994 when Mr Schnell was studying for his 2-year Masters degree in community planning, had defended the free speech rights of Margaret Gilleo.  Ms Gilleo had placed on her front lawn a 24- by 36 inch sign printed with the words, "Say No to War in the Persian Gulf, Call Congress Now." This case defended the right to express free speech with a written message on your own property. The City of Ladue, Missouri, like Mr Schnell, wanted to regulate the “clutter” of temporary signs on private property.

Mr Schnell like some HOA zealot wants to regulate your protected free speech on private property. In 2016, he spent your tax dollars to randomly survey properties for the number and size of campaign signs along M-33, M-27, M-68, and Riggsville Rd. He claims the zoning enforcement officer took no note if you were a Trump or Hillary supporter. Over 90% of parcels with political signs had up to five signs. From this unscientific survey, his department proposed allowing up to 32 sq/ft of signage per parcel. One hundred twenty feet or 200 acres, he would allow you 32 sq/ft of free speech. His first proposal allowed you to post a “Vote for Bob” sign for 30 days and he eventually acquiesced to allow a General Election cycle of 60 days if you remove the offensive sign from your front lawn 2 days after the polls close. His proposed “content neutral” sign ordinance ignored the 1984 Attorney General’s Opinion #6258 that stated “Political campaign signs are a form of speech protected by US Const, Am I and Const 1963, Article 1, Sec. 5. The posting of political campaign signs on private property may not be limited by a municipality to a specified number of days preceding an election.”

Mr Schnell had promised, “The County Planning Commission is reviewing the sign regulations and removing content-based regulations to provide signage that promotes everyone’s freedom of speech.” After more than a year of work, the County Planning Commission had a public tasting and found this an unpalatable sign ordinance amendment. Our thanks to them; they have temporarily halted Mr Schnell’s attempt to limit your First Amendment right to free speech.