Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident Howard Fredericks urges delay on proposed sign‑ordinance repeal, alleges conflicts
Summary
At a Park Ridge borough council meeting, resident Howard Fredericks urged council to delay a repeal of ordinance 101‑34(c)(8), arguing it misapplies Reed v. Town of Gilbert and saying some council members have been publicly implicated; the council tabled the item.
Howard Fredericks, a Park Ridge resident, used the council’s public‑comment period to urge elected officials to slow consideration of a repeal and replacement of borough ordinance 101‑34(c)(8), which governs political signs. “I will not name any particular names,” Fredericks said, adding that he had seen members of the governing body “publicly implicated in alleged recent violations of this ordinance.”
Fredericks summarized the ordinance’s current limits: under 101‑34 political or election signs are permitted on private property only and may not be placed on public property. He argued the draft repeal misapplies the U.S. Supreme Court’s Reed v. Town of Gilbert decision and warned that repealing the provision without clear limits would allow “unfettered visual pollution and driver distraction.” He noted the municipal code lacks specific penalties and that state law can impose fines “up to a $2,000 fine per infraction.”
Mayor Meshachno and other council members responded that the item had been tabled following the work session and would not be considered that night. “At the request of the council president, that matter will be tabled,” the mayor said. Council members also disputed any immediate assertion of wrongdoing; one council member said the borough’s sign rules have been essentially non‑enforced for some time and characterized the language under consideration as outdated.
Fredericks recommended three courses of action: enforce the existing ordinance uniformly (including against council members), amend the code to allow limited, permitted political use of public property with clear caps and permit fees, or delay further consideration to allow more review. He told the council he feared rushing a repeal could be perceived as an effort to remove legal risks to sitting members.
The council’s decision to table the repeal means the proposed text will be reviewed at a later date. The meeting record shows no formal motion to investigate alleged violations during this session; Fredericks declined to identify individuals by name during his remarks.
