A federal appellate court has ruled in the City of Bradford’s
favor over a sign debate that dates back three years.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit handed down the ruling filed Thursday morning, stating the
city’s changes to its sign ordinance have been enough to make it
constitutional.
Tom Riel, Fred Pysher and Dianne Thompson were 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, a Bradford City councilman and candidate for mayor, 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 were represented by Witold Walczak of the
American Civil Liberties Union and Erie attorney Philip Friedman,
who 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.
This decision affirmed the ruling of U.S. District Court Judge
Sean McLaughlin made in August 2005.
“We are very pleased and honored (the court) upheld
(McLaughlin’s) decision,” Mayor Michele Corignani said.
“Unfortunately, the litigation took as long as it did and cost the
taxpayers as much as it did. I hope it’s now over.”
She added whether or not the litigation continues hinges on
Riel, Thompson, Pysher and the ACLU.
And while Thursday’s ruling was a defeat in court, it was not a
loss as a whole, according to Walczak.
“First, Mr. Riel, Mr. Pysher and Ms. Thompson have done the
residents of Bradford a great favor by fixing an ordinance that
prohibited homeowners from displaying political signs on their
property,” Walczak said.
He said that although the city has “fixed many of the problems
in the ordinance, we felt there was some that still needed to be
taken care of. The courts disagreed.”
“This doesn’t diminish the important public service our clients
have performed,” he said. “Before this lawsuit, the people in the
historical district couldn’t put up a sign saying ‘Bring Home the
Troops’ or ‘Never Surrender.’ Now they can.
“If you pull the lens back and look at the entire litigation,
it’s a win for free speech and the rights of homeowners.”
Riel echoed Walczak’s sentiments.
“We didn’t win the final round, but I feel we won the fight in
that we, through this whole process, we were able to get the city
to amend and change their ordinances pertaining to signs.
“The city changed its ordinances to make them more
constitutional,” Riel said. “We just didn’t agree they were 100
percent constitutional and still don’t agree.”
Lanzillo also issued a statement on the city’s behalf, noting
that the city’s ordinance is not that different than others.
“The city is hopeful that the decision will mark the end of the
multiple years of expensive litigation in which the ACLU, Riel,
Thompson and Pysher have unsuccessfully attempted to attack the
city’s ordinances,” he said.
“The city’s ordinances are similar to ordinances adopted by
cities and municipalities across Pennsylvania which are designed to
promote public safety, historic preservation and community
aesthetics.”
City solicitor Mark Hollenbeck, who also represented the city in
this matter, was in court Thursday and unavailable for comment.
The topic of money was also brought up between the two
parties.
“The city turned this litigation in to its insurance carrier and
paid a deductible three years ago and has paid nothing since,” Riel
said.
Corignani, however, said the city did pay the deductible, but
more money may charged “when and if it’s over.”
She added the city has been paying miscellaneous costs not
covered by the insurance and is expected to receive another bill or
statement.
Corignani added that if the city had lost, it would have had to
pay for all of the costs and fees of the lawsuit, which could have
been “into six figures.”
“This all could have been avoided if the city would have
listened to us in the beginning and made these ordinances
constitutional when this first started back in the spring of 2004,”
Riel said. “We did accomplish something for the citizens of
Bradford.”
Walczak explained that he and his clients have 90 days to decide
whether to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case or have
the entire panel on the Third Circuit look at it.
They are still evaluating what to do, Walczak said.
