If I was a betting man (I’m not), my bet would be that the City will lose.  I think that there are a number of cases that get close to making this a slam dunk for the pastry shop owner.  Reed v Town of Gilbert almost got there.  Masterpiece Cake Shop probably has something to say about it as well.  There are a bunch of other cases relating to murals and art as free speech that will come into play.  Does anyone think that this Supreme Court will issue anything other than a 9-0 decision in favor of the pastry shop?

 

But a larger issue is this: the article states “many – including the zoning board members – applauded the students’ colorful work, but said rules must be followed, even if they’re old and outdated”.  Further down, it says ‘“Everyone has to comply with the ordinance”, said Charlie Birch, a former U.S. Forest Service worker.  “And even though it was done by the students, which was well done, and I give them a lot of credit for it, I kinda hated to see it go, but if you have the ordinance, ‘One for all,’ that’s where we are.  You can’t really make any exceptions, otherwise everybody else will want an exception.”’  Really?  What is the ordinance for?  Does the City own the ordinance, or does the ordinance own the City?  If the City is admitting that the ordinance is “old and outdated”, then for crying out loud change the ordinance. 

 

Sometimes planners can be their own worst enemy.  Using an ordinance like this to take what everyone involved agrees is an attractive and well-done mural, and one that adds liveliness to the public realm, to paint over some art students’ work and a pastry shop owner’s efforts, is a losing proposition for everyone involved.  Sometimes references to historic preservation are used as justification for these kinds of restrictive ordinances.  That’s also not a winning approach.  The past was a lot more colorful than black and white photographs make it look.  And I can show you lots of photos of Brigham City from the 1890’s to the 1930’s that have lots of large signs, including murals advertising everything from cigars to blue jeans to toiletries that are substantively no different than this mural.  Change the freakin’ ordinance and let it stay!  Strike a win for the proposition that planners can be reasonable and that diversity and expression are good things, not something to be tamped down.

 

Paul Larsen AICP MSARP

Community & Economic Development Director

20 N. Main Street

Brigham City UT  84302

(435) 734-6603

 

From: Aric Jensen via Utah Chapter APA Listserv <utahapa@PROTECTED>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 5:52 AM
To: Utah Chapter APA Listserv <utahapa@PROTECTED>
Subject: [EXTERNAL][UAPA] Pastry artwork pits bakery against town in free speech suit

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: aricj.msdd@PROTECTED Good morning all - a case that may be the next landmark sign ruling. https://apnews.com/article/50e00b0039d76f8128af01d65589cc16   Utah Chapter APA Listserv Post to: Utah Chapter APA Listserv ( utahapa@PROTECTED )   Unsubscribe