The challenge to the constitutionality of the City of Bradford’s
ordinances governing signs and Historic Preservation had another
day in court on Tuesday, this time before the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals in Philadelphia.

Witold “Vic” Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union,
attorney for appellants Tom Riel, Fred Pysher and Dianne Thompson,
explained Tuesday evening by phone that a three-judge panel heard
arguments and will issue a decision in the spring or summer.

“We’re not going to know until they tell us,” Walczak said,
adding he expects a wait of three to six months before hearing a
decision from the court.

Riel, Pysher and Thompson have been challenging the
constitutionality of the city’s ordinances governing Historic
Preservation and signs after the three received citations in March
of 2004 for posting signs on buildings in Bradford’s Historic
District without prior approval of the Historic Architectural
Review Board.

Riel was cited for posting signs – which were critical of
Bradford city government – on a building he co-owns with Thompson.
Thompson was cited because she is part owner of the building.
Pysher was cited for placing a business-related sign on the
exterior of Upper Allegany Realty without first obtaining approval
from HARB. The three business people, represented by Walczak and
Erie attorney Philip Friedman, took the case to federal court.

During the course of litigation, City of Bradford officials,
represented by solicitor Mark Hollenbeck and Erie attorney Richard
Lanzillo, modified the ordinances in accordance with some of the
points the ACLU had made in the initial filings.

For instance, before the suit was filed, all signs within the
Historic District required a permit before erection. After the
modifications made by the city, there was a permit exception for
noncommercial signs, not exceeding 12-square-feet, which are placed
on private property.

U.S. District Judge Sean McLaughlin upheld the legality of the
city’s amended ordinances.

Riel, Pysher and Thompson appealed McLaughlin’s ruling to the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing, among other things, that
the ordinances contain content-based restrictions, as “one must
know what the sign conveys in order to know whether a permit is
required,” according to a brief in the case.

Hollenbeck had no comment on Tuesday.

Walczak said Tuesday that the city’s argument in favor of
requiring permits for all signs centers around safety, as a sign
might “injure or kill someone.”

“This has become the case of the killer signs,” Walczak said
wryly. “In the very next sentence in their brief, it says ‘This is
not hyperbole.’ If this is not hyperbole, I don’t know what is.

“The signs we’re talking about are the same ones in every
community in this country,” Walczak said, adding the signs may be
voicing support of a football team, encouraging voting one way or
another or expressing a person’s views on another subject. Most
signs are made from paper, cardboard or plywood and are fastened to
a wall or mounted in the ground.

“Tell me something, how many people up there have been killed by
these signs?” Walczak asked The Era.

When the reply was no one, he replied sarcastically, “You guys
are very fortunate.”

Switching his tone, he said such concerns over huge, towering
signs such as ones at a supermarket or gas station may be
understandable. “If those things came crashing down, they’d ruin
your day.”

However, he spoke of his hometown, where the high school just
won a division championship and a 24-foot-sign on sheets mounted in
a yard, congratulating the team for their hard work.

“In Bradford, especially in the Historic District, you’d have to
get two separate permits to put that up,” he said.

“I’m completely befuddled how a court could uphold this law, but
one already has,” he said, referring to McLaughlin’s ruling last
year.

Should this panel of judges uphold this law as well, Walczak
said, “It may not be the last word.”

The appellants can petition the entire panel of judges on the
Third Circuit to review the case, or can petition for the U.S.
Supreme Court to hear the case.

“It’s not inconceivable that could happen,” he said.