AGENDA #5c
|
to: |
Mayor and Town Council |
|
from: |
Ralph D. Karpinos, Town Attorney |
|
subject: |
Response to Citizen Petition Regarding Mobile Billboard Advertising |
|
date: |
September 24, 2007 |
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to provide information in response to a citizen petition on mobile billboard advertising.
On June 27, 2007, the Council received and referred to the Attorney a petition (Attachment 1) asking whether the Town “can take action against” the use of mobile billboard advertising in Chapel Hill.
The petition expresses concern over large vehicles driving along Franklin Street “with the sole purpose of advertising.” The petition expresses concerns over the vehicles based on their use of resources and contribution to air pollution.
Franklin Street is a part of the State highway system. The Town does not have the statutory authority to prevent mobile billboard vehicles or any other vehicles from driving on the State highway system within the Town limits based on the purpose for which they are traveling. The Town’s authority to regulate use of local streets under the Town’s jurisdiction based on a reason not directed to traffic and public safety also raises issues of statutory authority.
Moreover, enforcement of such a rule would require there to be a determination on a case by case basis regarding the purpose for which a vehicle might be traveling. For example, mobile billboards might be traveling through town for purposes other than just displaying their messages while a vehicle designed for purposes in addition to just carrying advertising might be used in some particular situation purely as an advertising tool.
In addition to needing legislative authority and/or the concurrence of the State Department of Transportation in order to impose such regulations on State highways, prohibiting the use of public streets, state or local, for traveling based on the purpose for which a person is traveling raises concerns under both the State and Federal Constitutions.
Preliminary research indicates that cities around the country that have attempted to enforce limitations on mobile billboards, including New York, Boston and San Francisco, have found themselves involved in litigation with the companies which operate such vehicles.
That the Council take no further action on this petition.
If the Council believes that mobile billboard advertising is a problem in Chapel Hill which merits further consideration, I recommend that the matter be discussed with neighboring jurisdictions at one of the forums available for discussion of regional transportation issues to see if other jurisdictions are interested in pursuing legislative authority and/or with representatives of the North Carolina Department of Transportation.