Collected a bit.

Under the First Amendment, courts are most concerned when sign regulations seek to restrict or regulate content of signs. Content based codes are subject to the strictest judicial scrutiny and will be upheld only if a court finds that the regulation is justified by a compelling governmental interest/and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. This could become an issue when content determines definition of a sign, as in commercial vs noncommercial signage.

We have a content based code.

Example: Signs advertising a product, service or business that are carried worn or otherwise supported by a person are prohibited. However, "ideological" signs, defined by the City as “anti abortion signs, peace signs, anything guaranteed as freedom of speech by the U.S. Constitution” appear to be exempt from this prohibition as long as they meet the size requirements. This creates a content based restriction that implies that "ideological" signs do not create the same safety risks as sale or car wash signs.
The city’s answer to the question “What is the definition of an ideological sign” also bothers me. “Anything guaranteed as freedom of speech by the U.S. Constitution”.

But a local governments sign code must comply with the 1st Amendments guarantee of freedom of expression, because every sign, including a business sign that does nothing more than identify a business or advertise a product is a constitutionally protected form of expression.

Another provision requires that similarly situated individuals receive equal treatment and protection of the law. As applied to sign codes this mean that if the business activity is legal the code must be equally applied to everyone.

Therefore, it is discriminatory to require a permit for one type of sign and not for another based on content.
This would come into play when anyone can put up a construction or real estate sign (or perhaps a daycare?) with no permit or inspection and a different type of business owner cannot put up the same size and type of sign at his business without getting it permitted and inspected, and installed by a licensed sign contractor.

Also exempt from permit are “Flags, emblems, crests, or insignia of any nation, political subdivision, corporation or any other entity or business”. Again, the content of the sign changes how the Code regulates the sign. Specifically, how the City defines and permits the sign. Is this equal treatment?

Abandoned signs. It states that if a sign no longer advertises a business it has to come down. This was part of the old code. It does not seem to apply to certain persons or businesses. Once again, lets give everyone equal treatment. If you force someone to take their sign down you need to make sure you force everyone in the same situation to take their sign down.
And now the City is amending part of the section that addresses the Cities right to remove an unpermitted sign. They can’t even enforce their own abandoned sign requirements, and they are talking about how they are going to take signs that advertise for legitimate businesses? This is what they felt was important after a year and a half?

Nonconforming signs: Copy changes are what I would like to address here. July 2002 a District Court judge ruled “The triggering of conformity upon altering the message or content of the sign is unconstitutional". He went on to say “a prior restraint exists when speech is conditioned upon the prior approval of public officials. Requiring official permission to change a sign’s message is suggestive of authority to sanction the message itself.” (page 10, see link below) On a legal, nonconforming sign, why can our city require an inspection/permit for changing just the copy?

Another consideration is how the code relates to its Intents and Purpose section. When the code requires things that in no way affect the stated purpose of the code, it leaves itself open to legal challenge. Safety and Liability issues should be a part of the intents and purposes. Simple wording changes would fix that.

In our Code it states: Any person engaged in the installation or repair of electrical signs, including neon, must have an individual sign electrician/journeyman certificate, or be licensed as an electrician by the State.
In our Code it states: A person or firm engaged in the business of fabricating, installing, altering, maintaining, or repairing and or modification of electrical wires, apparatus, raceways or any other portion of electrical sign must adhere to the following requirement: Sign contractor Class A-Must show evidence that at least one member of the corporation or firm holds a current sign electrician certificate.
So others can do the work on electrical signs but only one person must have the license. This is not fair. It is also contradictory of the preceding statement. The person doing the work needs to have the license, or we need an actual apprentice – journeyman system as in other states, governing this as a trade. If you are going to require a license you need specific criteria governing acquisition of that license. The code states you must have proof of 2 years experience, but does not state what kind of experience. The sign code guy, whoever he is, gets to decide if you have the proper experience I guess.

If a person of reasonable intelligence, which I consider myself, cannot know with adequate precision what a sign ordinance mandates or prohibits it is considered impermissible vagueness. The absence of clear standards in the code guiding the discretion of public officials, leaving the interpretation of the code open to ambiguous or subjective reasoning is considered impermissible vagueness.

I wrote most of this post about a year and a half ago. Here is a link to court cases etc. since I suspect someone will want them. I have made minor changes to this post it today, but I am curious, what do you think. Could there be other issues that could possibly be addressed besides the ones Ordinance 2957 addresses?
I know for a fact that most of these issues I mentioned have been questioned since the new code took effect.
How will these issues under review "further benefit the public"?

Up next I will discuss permit fees, inspections, and where your money goes. Wait, no one knows!