Quote:
Originally Posted by Maker
Go re-read the SCOTUS case. It was specifically about SIGNS, and how ALL signs are 100% protected 1st amendment speech. Those protections apply to everyone.
Protected rights cannot be permanently given up, one may recover those rights at any time. That's basic constitutional law. A deed restriction is giving up that right, and can be recovered at anytime.
The protected class here is all people in the country.
Signs can be with words, or with images, or symbols (such as objects presented as to convey a message). Examples are garage sale; arrows; KFC's chicken bucket.
Governments often adopt sign laws, however most are generally not enforceable by this SCOTUS decision. But they look good, and some people actually fall for those unconstitutional restrictions.
SCOTUS said if you need to read a sign to decide if a law applies to it, then that law is unconstitutional. Their example was a law limiting dates when a political sign can be put up. SCOTUS said legal laws must fit very narrow limitations, such as construction not dangerous to others, can not block view of critical areas creating a safety issue (such as blocking a car's view of a stop sign). They said invalid reasons are content, location, size, quantity, types, style...
SCOTUS also said any part of a government cannot enforce any unconstitutional restriction. CDD operates as an extension of the government. So (for discussion's sake) even if one were to accept your theory that deed restriction are actually valid, CDDs are 100% barred from enforcement.
Don't like that? Go petition SCOTUS for a change in their ruling.
|
I don't need to do that. I deal with this stuff for a living and have a very good understanding of how it works.
Unlike many on this thread, i don't have to run to Google and decide what my opinion or position is.
You apparently have little or no experience with real estate property rights, because your conclusion is dead wrong. I can sell a parcel of land, with a restriction that "No Billboards" be erected. What I can't do, is sell a parcel of land and prohibit only billboards that attack LBGQT folks. Sometimes you don't have to run to AI to get a Constitutional question answered, one can sometimes rely on simply common sense.
Also, if you're going to quote the Supreme Court's decision in Reed, you perhaps should read it again. The Decision says that signs absolutely can be regulated by government, provided regulations are "content neutral". The Decision says sign regulations cannot be based on message or subject (content).