Bedford Minuteman
Wednesday, July 23, 2003

Board: Bylaw is unconstitutional

By Natalie Goodale / Staff Writer

After residents passionately objected to the town's bylaw prohibiting political signs in residential areas, the bylaw has been deemed unconstitutional by the selectmen.

"It's the responsibility of all elected officials to uphold the constitution," said Lori Eggert, a Bedford resident who objected to the town's enforcement of the bylaw.

The "No FedEx at Hanscom" signs that dotted the town before last week somewhat faded away after the code enforcement officer sent out letters to the residents telling them the signs were illegal. But Eggert contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, a non-profit organization that exists for the protection of civil rights.

Staff attorney Sarah Wunsh told Eggert Bedford's bylaw was unconstitutional, citing a 1994 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Ladue, Mo. verses Gilleo. Margaret Gilleo placed a sign protesting U.S. involvement in the Persian Gulf War at her home in Ladue, Mo. When she was told the sign was illegal, she took the town to court.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the city's ordinance was unconstitutional, saying the ordinance banning signs from windows of private homes violates freedom of speech rights protected by the First Amendment.

"A special respect for individual liberty in the home has long been part of our culture and our law ... and that principle has special resonance when the government seeks to constrain a person's ability to speak there," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the unanimous court.

One year earlier, in 1993, Bedford passed its sign bylaw. When the Supreme Court ruling came out in 1994, however, the town didn't change its law. Wunsh said that some towns have cleaned up their bylaws and some haven't.

The first paragraph of the letter recently sent out to those with the signs on their lawns read, "The sign bylaws for the town of Bedford were revised in 1993 to satisfy the residential community so that the town would retain the rural atmosphere. Under General Regulations - Section 2 - Residential Zone, the bylaw does not allow signs in a residential district except for those specifically delineated in this section."

In the letter, Code Enforcement Director Chris Laskey requested that the signs be removed within five days after receipt of the letter.

Eggert appeared before selectmen at Monday's meeting and told them changing the bylaw wasn't as hard as they may think.

"Lexington did it," she said. "They wiped it away, replacing the bylaw with reasonable restrictions. The prohibition was replaced with a regulation of the signs."

Eggert told selectmen that the bylaw is unconstitutional, and she requested that there be a new letter sent out to those who had signs up telling people that Bedford will not be enforcing this bylaw.

Selectmen agreed to have a moratorium on the enforcement of the bylaw. They directed that such a letter be sent out to those who received the warning.

Joy Kenen also attended the meeting and spoke to the selectmen, telling them she and her husband had placed a sign on their lawn and received a letter from Laskey. However, she has seen many other political signs in town with different messages, and she wonders if those people are being told the same thing.

"I wouldn't be surprised if that sign bylaw was spottily enforced," she said.

Selectman Chairman Cathy Cordes assured her it was being enforced properly. Cordes said town officials were only enforcing the town bylaws, which is what they are supposed to do.

"I am relieved that the selectmen are going to do the right thing," Eggert said. "I hope I can help amend the sign bylaw. I'm confident it will be done pretty quickly, and they will have an article at the next town meeting. It's a tough issue. I hope Lasky will get the letter out saying the signs can stay. I want people to know. I feel better; it's good to have a government like this."

Copyright by TownOnline.com and Herald Interactive Advertising Systems ==========
**NOTICE: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.** ==========