Lawsuits filed over new rules limiting billboards

Launce Rake and Erica Johnson

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 | 11 a.m.

Thought the seemingly interminable debate over Clark County's new billboard rules was over?

Get ready for Round 2.

The billboard industry, stung by the new rules passed last month and the rejection of numerous permits for new billboards along the Las Vegas Beltway, has launched at least two lawsuits seeking to block the law and get the signs up.

Billboard companies had waited more than a year in some cases for dozens of applications to go before the county commission before the new law passed Feb. 4 with a 7-0 vote. The effect of the new rules was to limit the number of signs on the beltway. In a split vote, the majority of county commissioners also rejected the permit applications, citing staff recommendations and the new law.

While the new rules did not necessarily apply to the pre-existing applications, the county commissioners could use them to guide their decision on the permits, county attorney Rob Warhola said during the debate.

He maintains the same position today.

"What it comes down to is who decides when enough is enough," Warhola said Tuesday. "That's the board's decision."

County planning staff had consistently warned the commission that there were too many billboards proposed for I-215 west of Interstate 15. They echoed community activists who worked for months to get the new restrictions in place.

But the lawsuits, both filed in District Court March 10 could undo much of that work. One lawsuit represents three companies: Ad America, Orion Outdoor Media and Reagan National Advertising of Nevada.

The suit asks that the court force the county to allow the dozens of billboards to go up and suspend the law, which "is unconstitutional on its face and should be declared void as a matter of law," according to the suit.

The suit contends the commissioners considered all of the billboard applications collectively rather than individually, as county law requires, that they violated constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, and that they otherwise illegally denied the billboards.

The second suit echoes the first. The suit was filed on behalf of Las Vegas Billboards and 10 landowners who would like to rent their land for the billboards.

The second suit also argues that because the county rents land for billboards at McCarran International Airport and the billboard law does not apply to those signs, the county is practicing unfair restraint-of-trade, operating as an illegal monopoly and violating equal protection guarantees.

"The county applies a different set of rules to off-premises in comparison to on-premises signs," said attorney Michael McCue, representing Las Vegas Billboards. "There are different rules for county-owned property. In essence the county is a competitor of the billboard companies and is also regulating the billboard companies.

"We contend that there is no rational basis for treating adjacent property outside McCarran airport from the airport proper," he said.

Both suits ask for damages, though neither puts a dollar figure on the request.

During the debate on the issue, County Commissioner Myrna Williams and Commission Chairwoman Mary Kincaid-Chauncey had argued that the old billboard applications should not be judged by the new rules, a point with which both lawsuits agree.

However, Warhola argued that the County Commission has no legal responsibility to approve any "special-use" permit applications, which is what are given to billboards. Indeed, that point was a keystone of the industry's lobbying effort for the former billboard law, passed a year earlier.

When the February 2002 law was enacted, the billboard industry representatives and their supporters on the County Commission argued that the commissioners would be able to deny any application because all billboards would require special-use permits, which grant the commission a wide range of discretion.

"It is their burden of proof," Warhola said. "It is not our burden to show that billboards should not go there. It is their burden to show that they should. They are not automatically entitled to these simply because they are within the bounds of the old ordinance."

The commissioners also considered each case individually, even if they used similar criteria in rejecting them, Warhola said. The new law was passed to respond to a particular concern of the County Commission, including two new commissioners, sworn in January, who represented a shift of the county's policies, he said.

The concern expressed by community activists, the majority of the board and the county staff is that there were simply too many billboards in that area, Warhola said.

"The board has discretion to say when enough is enough," he said. "When you allow one billboard out there, does that mean you have to allow an unlimited number, or billboards every 500 feet?"

Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, who strongly supported the new law and voted against billboard applications contrary to it, said he was not familiar with the case. But he noted that the billboard representatives, when making their pitch to the County Commission Feb. 4, did not raise any legal issues.

But the new law should never have been applied to the pre-existing billboard applications, argued Puoy Premsrirut, an attorney representing Ad America, Reagan National and Orion Outdoor Media.

"In applying for these billboards our clients played by the rules and jumped through all the hoops established by the County Commission," she said. "But at the very last minute the commission decided to change the rules."

Premsrirut claims the issue reaches beyond Clark County billboards and speaks to land use issues in Clark County in general.

"Residents should be concerned that the commission can arbitrarily change the process and apply new rules retroactively," she said. "Even if the public doesn't like billboards or the billboard industry, Clark County has set a bad precedent for all land use applicants."

Once the County Commission files its response to the complaint, a District Judge will set a briefing schedule, Premsrirut said.

Premsrirut said her clients are entitled to the permits because they incurred significant time, money and effort in procuring leases and establishing relationships with land owners.

"They've acted in good faith," she said. "They're outraged at the system and upset that the commission can unilaterally change the process. If the county wants to change ordinances, that's something our clients can live by, but not enact new rules and enforce them retroactively."

Warhola said the county has 20 days to respond to the suits. The county can ask the court to dismiss some or all of the claims, he said.