What started as an effort to remove abandoned, trashy news boxes from downtown streets is on its way to becoming a complex new system of regulation by City Hall.
The Ordinance Committee is reviewing a proposed statute that would establish rules for placing newspaper boxes, establish insurance requirements for anyone putting out a box, require $12-per-box fees and more.
Because of First Amendment concerns, “we had to tread lightly” in drafting the proposed law, said Dale Clift, an assistant city attorney.
Clift said that the suggested change originally focused on the many free newspaper boxes – which typically distribute real estate and dating advertisements – that have been neglected.
But officials found they could not comply with constitutional provisions unless a local ordinance is “content neutral,” which essentially means the city can’t treat the boxes of a dating monthly any different than it would those hawking The Wall Street Journal.
Clift said that the regulations aim to make it easier for pedestrians to use sidewalks and for drivers to park their cars safely.
If the new ordinance is approved, it would be against the law in Bristol to put a newspaper box on public property unless the Public Works Department issues a permit for it.
The permits would give the green light to put a box at a specific spot, assuming that the company seeking to have the box has a mandated $1 million insurance policy in place for its boxes, officials said.
The rules establish standards for the installation and maintenance of newspaper boxes. Clift said some of them today are “kind of shabby.”
After City Planner Alan Weiner raised some doubts about provisions in the draft this month, city councilors opted to postpone action until they could review it further.
Weiner said he wasn’t sure that a section regulating the color scheme of boxes was proper. He said that some papers have specific color combinations that they use regularly to establish their brand identity.
If the city’s rules didn’t allow those colors, Weiner said, there could be a challenge.
In addition, he said that a provision barring boxes near “unmarked crosswalks” doesn’t make sense because he doesn’t know what an unmarked crosswalk is.
The draft ordinance also refers to commercial districts, which don’t even exist in Bristol’s land use regulation scheme.
But aside from some particulars that need revision, Weiner said, “the main concept is certainly a good one.”
The Ordinance Committee plans to take up the issue again at the end of March.
The soonest it could go before the City Council for a vote is in April.
To see the full PDF text of the proposed law, click here.
*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
13 comments:
It’s about time. These multi-colored garbage bins of job opportunities, real estate and God knows what else, are unsightly, messy and unnecessary.
We need not restrict Freedom of the Press, but we do need to regulate the proliferation of these junk dispensers.
While there may not be much value to a real estate magazine or some of these papers. This regulation, I believe, still strikes a heavy blow to free speech.
First that placement of the box needs prior approval from the Public works department. If, for example, the publication was seen as politically controversial (like "independant media" often is) why would a government agency be seen as the best decider about making that publication available?
Second, and the more distressing issue, is the requirement that the vendor be insured. It doesn't bode well for the first amendment that you can publish an item and distribute an item but only if you can afford a million dollar insurance policy.
The guiding principle here should be that free speech is no good if it is in so obscure in a place and presentation that no one can hear it or see it. As important as saying or printing what you want is the ability to attract an audience.
But the more pratical question I would ask is does this mean that publications like the Bristol Observer can no longer be available on a table at the bottom of the stairs in city hall?
Further:
The regulation still doesn't define what an "Unmarked crosswalk" is.
"In such a location as to cause a material safety issue" is extremely vague. What type of location would this be that hasn't already been defined? And who makes that decision?
The legislation is after the fact legislation which I find questionable since the categories for first, second, and third priority are clearly tilted toward the Courant and the Press as opposed to smaller publications.
Just my .02
A community should welcome the expression of free speech and encourage it. Having publications available on tables in City Hall or on counters in the Post Office are a fine way to encourage distribution and readership.
But if someone wants to stand in the middle of North Main Street, dressed as a clown and give publications away to drivers passing by, it wouldn't be allowed for safety reasons. Thus a community has a right to regulate the distribution of the news.
Some communities make a uniform display or an agreed upon location a requirement. Others require a permit or a fee, or insurance.
My concern is that these boxes grow in number, in size and in the hideous paint colors that are displayed. They are not only ugly, they are poorly maintained so the publications blow out onto the sidewalk and streets. The ones located in shopping centers are probably not regulated by Public Works.
I think in an orderly community these things must be regulated.
Newspaper boxes are NOT the only way to acquire the newspapers.
Taxpaying businesses sell them, they are delivered to the door, and free ones are left at locations where they do not affect the overall condition of our streets..
On the other hand, the boxes do get ugly, interfere with some maintenance and become targets for vndalism.
There is a cost to the city in more ways than one.
We are an online generation which means that it isn't necessary to have all these publications in print form.
West Conn Student - I'm surprised you aren't embracing this ordinance.
I think in an orderly community these things must be regulated.
February 28, 2008 6:14 PM
********************
This mindset fits the current Gestapo tactics being used by city hall to remove the 'undesirable ' element in the housing sector .
Seig Heil !!!!!!!
You clowns wouldn't dare to have free speach. Then you couldn't hide behind the anonymous title. You are nothing but loud mouth cowards. Maybe you'd do better in Cuba. I assure you you won't be missed.
...2:24, If you are soooo uncomfortable with our "gestapo" tactics...why don't you just LEAVE.
You gotta love that free "speach"...We also have free education...give it a try!
...2:24, If you are soooo uncomfortable with our "gestapo" tactics...why don't you just LEAVE.
March 1, 2008 7:45 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I will remain and fight to the end against the corrupt nazi style tyranny being employed by the city leadership .
If YOU have a problem with that then YOU should consider running away .
2:17 - You silly slumlords are sooooooo overdramatic! "Nazi style tyranny"...hahahahahaha, stop please...you're making my sides ache!
These paper boxes are not a eyesore or a problem. There's not that many in my neighborhood. I usually need to go looking for one to get a paper.
This is more political garbage coming form a bunch of blow-hards, too incompetent to do anything meaningful. So they pick on the silly paper-boxes. Get a life you re-tread wanna-be losers.
...8:40, Of course they're not an eyesore to YOU, but anyone with pink flamingos, 3 foot high grass and gnomes out in front of their trailer probably isn't the best judge of what constitutes an eyesore...one person's "silly paperbox" is another person's headache. Let's let the "re-tread wannabe losers" win this round. It's definitely a step in the right direction.
Post a Comment