Judges: Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General of Kansas
Filed Date: 3/11/1996
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The Honorable Dick Bond State Senator, 8th District State Capitol, Room 128-S Topeka, Kansas 66612
Dear Senator Bond:
You request our opinion concerning whether a city may regulate the size and spacing of commercial advertising signs that are located on private property and, if so, whether such regulations must conform to state and federal laws.
The answer to your first question is in the affirmative. Billboards and other forms of advertising may be regulated by a city under its police power in order to promote aesthetic considerations, traffic safety and the preservation of property values. Such regulation includes the size and shape of signs. Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro,
One limitation on a city's exercise of its police power is that the regulation of the size and spacing of advertising signs must be reasonable and bear a fair relationship to the object sought to be obtained. Hearn v. City of Overland Park,
Your second query concerns whether sign size and spacing regulations must conform to state and federal law. Those laws are found at
The federal law provides for a reduction of federal aid highway funds to any state which has not established "effective control" of outdoor advertising signs within 660 feet of an interstate or primary system highway. Basically, all signs within 660 feet of federal interstate highways and primary highways (i.e. any highway on the national highway system) are limited to official and directional signs, signs advertising property for sale/lease, on-site advertising, landmark signs and signs advertising free coffee.
In order to avoid the loss of federal funds the Kansas legislature adopted the highway advertising control act (K.S.A.
The short answer to your question is that city regulation of outdoor commercial advertising within 660 feet of a federal or primary system highway may not conflict with
There may circumstances where a city sign regulation may conflict with either the federal or the state statute and if a court determines that such conflict exists, the city ordinance will fail. However, given the great deference paid by both the federal and state government to a city's regulatory authority over the erection, maintenance, size, spacing and lighting of signs in commercial and industrial areas, it may difficult to establish such a conflict.
Very truly yours,
CARLA J. STOVALL Attorney General of Kansas
Mary Feighny Assistant Attorney General
CJS:JLM:MF:jm
National Advertising Company v. The City and County of ... , 912 F.2d 405 ( 1990 )
T & S SIGNS, INC. v. Village of Wadsworth , 261 Ill. App. 3d 1080 ( 1994 )
Roberts Enterprises, Inc. v. Secretary of Transportation , 237 Kan. 276 ( 1985 )
City of Douglass v. Tri-Co Fertilizer, Inc. , 214 Kan. 154 ( 1974 )
Hearn v. City of Overland Park , 244 Kan. 638 ( 1989 )
Robert L. Rieke Building Co. v. City of Overland Park , 232 Kan. 634 ( 1983 )
Ackerley Communications, Inc. v. City of Seattle , 92 Wash. 2d 905 ( 1979 )
Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for ... , 104 S. Ct. 2118 ( 1984 )
Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro , 97 S. Ct. 1614 ( 1977 )
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego , 101 S. Ct. 2882 ( 1981 )