By Michael E. Miller
By Ryan Yousefi
By Kyle Munzenrieder
By Sabrina Rodriguez
By Michael E. Miller
By Carlos Suarez De Jesus
By Luther Campbell
By Kyle Munzenrieder
Now you'd think city leaders would have learned they can't squelch speech because they object to the message, right? Apparently not. In a November 24 federal lawsuit, Outdoor Images, an advertising company based in Portland, Oregon, accuses the City of Miami of employing a vague and unconstitutional law passed in 1998 to regulate the content of large signs downtown. The company seeks to strike down the measure.
Assistant city attorney Joel Maxwell, who is litigating the case, declined to comment on ordinance 926.12, which states the city will judge signs based on their "graphic or artistic value." Members of a volunteer group that reviews all applications, the Urban Development Review Board (UDRB), say their oversight is justified to protect the citizenry from aesthetic monstrosities.
The controversy started in early March, when Outdoor Images secured permission from the owners of three downtown office buildings to hang 1000-square-foot ads high up on blank exterior walls. The advertising company placed a banner depicting a box of Post Honey Nut SnackēAbouts cereal on the east side of a six-story building at 223 East Flagler St. Several days later code-enforcement inspector Israel Ibanez informed Outdoor Images it needed a permit.
Ad executives didn't complain, says their lawyer, Matthew Buttrick. They proposed a replacement mural that would include a photo of a vast field of golden wheat in a sun-drenched valley. Along the left margin was the cereal's logo. In May the ten-member UDRB, which includes volunteer architects and is chaired by activist and political animal Willy Bermello, rejected the application. The board argued Miamians would hate the illustration. "The [UDRB] wanted to see something with a connection to Miami," Buttrick wrote in the lawsuit. "Thus at the conclusion of the hearing, the UDRB asked Outdoor Images to submit a different design for the property."
The company returned in June with the concept of replacing the giant cereal box with a depiction of a green tropical paradise, complete with palm trees and inviting blue water. This was "Miami" enough, right? Nope. The UDRB requested yet another proposal. And members added a requirement "that Outdoor Images make available the artist of whatever design they submitted at the next hearing to explain the 'meaning' of his or her artwork."
Outdoor Images scrapped the cereal idea and replaced it with a plan for a new banner displaying yellow and green splotches on a white background. Attached to the abstract work was an advertisement for NikeTown, a sports apparel store located in South Miami's Shops at Sunset Place. The UDRB liked the new idea and approved it in July. The board even termed it "art."
During a July 27 commission meeting, J.L. Plummer added another hurdle. The former commissioner objected to the placement of a downtown ad for a store outside city limits. "I want to have people driving downtown to leave and go out to [shop at] Sunset Drive?" Plummer asked sarcastically. When Outdoor Images said the address could be removed, Plummer responded: "You bet your bippy it's going to be deleted."
Seemingly sensing the commissioner might be overstepping the bounds of the law, assistant city attorney Maxwell intervened: "I would suggest that ... you not discuss that any further."
Soon after that encounter, Outdoor Images removed the SnackēAbouts banner and replaced it with NikeTown's ad -- sans address. Then, recently, the advertising firm hauled away NikeTown and hung a huge picture of eight people in a redwood forest, craning their necks as they look for something. Above their heads are the words "In Search of Voyager." Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines' logo is printed in the bottom right-hand corner. The Code Enforcement Board has threatened to fine the company $250 per day until it removes the picture or obtains a permit.
While Outdoor Images cites 223 East Flagler St. as the city's most egregious violation of the company's rights, it includes two other instances of purported discrimination in the suit. In May the company proposed a banner that depicted a camera-wielding woman standing on a rock-covered beach. Outdoor Images wanted to place it at 1 NE First St. The image included no apparent commercial message. Seven months later, the UDRB has not ruled on the application, Buttrick says.
A third application involved another Nike image at 100 East Flagler St. In September, Outdoor Images submitted five designs to the UDRB. They ranged from an aquarium stuffed with fish to a photo of Miami's skyline. The architects rejected all the applications. "Various members of the UDRB expressed to Outdoor Images that they were not 'moved' by the designs, did not find them 'appealing,' and were 'less than impressed,'" Buttrick noted in the lawsuit.