Five Dallas small-business owners — including two Fastsigns® franchisees — have filed a lawsuit in response to a Dallas sign ordinance that restricts commercial signage to 15% or less of windows or glass doors, or more than 25% of a building façade. The ordinance also limits commercial signage to the bottom third of windows and glass doors.
Dallas Mayor Dwaine Caraway said the ordinance has “absolutely not” significantly affected small-business revenue. In fact, he claimed it has helped small-business owners in his district, where an over-proliferation of alcohol, tobacco and soda advertisements prompted concern about city signage.
Caraway said the regulations were intended to improve aesthetics and prevent crime, though some small-business owners have circumvented this goal by using paper to cover offending signage.
The ordinance shocked signshop owners like April Gilliland, a Fastsigns owner and plaintiff in the case. A sign inspector informed her of the new regulations weeks after the ordinance was passed in June 2008. “At first I thought he was kidding, just teasing me, but it was true,” she said. “I was blown away.”
By November 2009, when the lawsuit was filed, at least 115 warnings or citations had been issued by the city, according to court documents filed by the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit, civil-liberties law firm that spearheaded the lawsuit. The plaintiffs are seeking $1 in damages, legal fees and a repeal of the ordinance.
Texas-chapter Institute for Justice lawyers didn’t return multiple calls for comment on the case, but court documents indicate the case is slated for trial this summer. Many scheduled trials never proceed or are delayed for years in a sluggish court system; Gilliland said the city threatened to back charge her for a year of noncompliance after the lawsuit was filed.
The Institute for Justice’s lawyers, who claim the ordinance is a First Amendment violation, found inconsistent ordinance enforcement. In a press release, they noted, “In both Charlie Patel’s and Jaine London’s [two plaintiffs for the case] cases, entire shopping centers were targeted, while businesses just down the street continue to violate the ordinance and were not cited.”
Caraway noted the impossibility of enforcing the ordinance equally in every district; enforcement may be “concentrated” in certain areas due to individual council members’ priorities and limited enforcement resources, he said. He conceded that “certain folks are thrown in the middle of the mix until the proper arrangements can be made” and admitted enforcement of new ordinances “can be unfortunate to some.”
“They’re just picking on certain areas,” Gilliland said. “They never cited me, but, because I’m part of the lawsuit, they said they’re going to charge $1,000 a day unless we drop the lawsuit.” She estimated she could owe $300,000.
City officials said safety issues and clutter necessitated the ordinance in 2008, according to NBC DFW, a local news station. Later, in 2010, ABC-affiliate WFAA-TV reported that Caraway defended the ordinance, this time stating business owners could advertise in the Yellow Pages or online.
Caraway seemed surprised to hear of a proposed six-figure fine for Gilliland. He said he doesn’t control enforcement of the ordinance, and wouldn’t be interested in pursuing such a large fine.
Steve Jessup, owner of Fort Worth-based Delta Signs, said the 2008 ordinances add to an already-restrictive sign code. He isn’t participating in the lawsuit, but has seen business suffer due to city sign ordinances: “These people that made these decisions obviously have never been in business for themselves, and they don’t know what impact it [a sign ordinance] has on small businesses . . . you’re just handcuffing the business owner.”
Today, Gilliland said some customers are “absolutely terrified, wanting to do the right thing,” while others tell her they’ll take their chances with noncompliant signage. She believes clients are reluctant to commission larger projects, while the ordinance stands, for fear of losing their investment.