|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1982
|
|
|
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
|
SENATE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 1, 1982
The Honorable James Clark, Jr.
President of the Senate
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404
Dear Mr. President:
In accordance with Article II, Section 17 of the
Maryland Constitution, I have today vetoed Senate Bill 702.
This bill prohibits any county or municipality from
removing or requiring the removal of an "off-premises
outdoor advertising sign" unless it pays the "fair market
value" of the sign in accordance with a schedule of the
State Department of Transportation used in conjunction with
its highway beautification program. The effect of the bill
would be to eliminate the phasing out or "amortization" of
certain signs by a local jurisdiction without monetary
payment as a sign regulation and removal strategy.
The amortization approach has been employed by local
government in Maryland for at least 25 years to promote
traffic safety and the economic well being, natural beauty,
and esthetic features of the particular jurisdiction.
Within certain constitutional limitations, the Maryland
courts have recognized amortization as a valid exercise of
the governmental police power which does not amount to an
unconstitutional "taking" for which the owner of the sign is
entitled to compensation. Grant v. City of Baltimore, 212
Md. 301 (1957); Donnelly Adv. Corp. v. City of Baltimore,
279 Md. 660 (1977).
I believe it is desirable to compensate owners of signs
required to be removed by government. However, the
regulation of the removal of these signs and their attendant
compensation should be undertaken at the same level of
government, the local level, responsible for the regulation
of the erection of the signs. Because of the complex
diversities among the subdivisions and municipalities in
Maryland the ability to address issues such as sign location
at the local level through zoning powers is a valuable tool
that should not be eroded with State interference in any but
extraordinary cases necessary to protect the safety or well
being of the public. Senate Bill 702 does not provide any
flexibility to accommodate the wide range of circumstances
facing local jurisdictions.
That this bill fundamentally changes that which has
traditionally been a matter of local concern in Maryland is
highlighted by the requests of the Mayor of the City of
Baltimore and the County Executives of Montgomery and
Baltimore Counties for a veto of Senate Bill 702. In
addition, other local elected officials, the Maryland
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
