|
r`.
<br /> scientists,but,in general,their application has been and the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The Plain Dealer had
<br /> limited to specific projects. challenged an earlier ordinance that totally banned newspaper r^ r••� ••i`
<br /> vending machines from city-owned property. In 1984, ;;•,;:
<br /> 8. When it is necessary or desirable to regulate the visual- Lakewood amended the ordinance and gave the mayor the
<br /> ,." ;
<br /> • architecture),em physical characteristics of a development's design(orhasis should be on the"format"of ,_t?,
<br /> Power to grant news rack permits subject to the"terms and
<br /> p conditions deemed necessary."In addition,the ordinance
<br /> design,rather than the style of design(or "„,, - :;
<br /> architecture).With the exception of historic districts, required approval of news racks by the city's architectural J... <
<br /> board of review and required publishers to have insurance to ,•,•:•:.•
<br /> compatibility with community character or harmonious T. =",,
<br /> cover the city's liability for accidents involving news racks. `' '
<br /> relationships between existing and new developments Writing for the majority,Justice William J. Brennan said ' ';:5
<br /> should be interpreted as adopting a prevalent and that the mayor's broad discretionary power to grant or deny .`f;.'.:
<br /> significant"format"of physical design. This might permits raised the danger of"content and viewpoint .,..,'',_
<br /> g P i_- '
<br /> include the relationship between people and enclosure, censorship."Such censorshipwould violate freedoms ,, ' ° '"
<br /> continuity of form,or continuity of meaning. This is '.^,ry'_, '
<br /> protected by the First Amendment. The high court did not ''''':721?,;"''
<br /> preferable to copying a specific architectural style,such g ,1
<br /> decide other challenges to the ordinance but asked the federal ' ` ,<
<br /> as Victorian, Early Californian,Gold Rush,Spanish, and appeals court to review these remaining issues. '<r:„,;n
<br /> so on. The decision was less than a major victory for the '`-fy; '`.c.
<br /> 4' i4
<br /> 9. Descriptive design criteria and standards should be newspaper industry. The New York Times reported that Justice `
<br /> illustrated.Care should be taken that the inclusion of a Brennan's opinion suggested that"cities may regulate the f,'Y '
<br /> drawing of a particular style or detail does not give the locations and perhaps other aspects of news racks for safety '4 :.
<br /> impression that matching the style depicted in the drawing and aesthetic reasons as long as they do not discriminate based , _ ;}
<br /> is a prerequisite for development approval. Many on the content of the publications."Moreover,the court
<br /> declined to rule on the question .4-z-,:!,-;1.,
<br /> alternative illustrative examples should be presented for of whether a city may impose
<br /> each item. an outright ban on news racks. a
<br /> Henry . Fischer,a lawyer
<br /> my for Lakewood, said that the city �;-;,Y`t
<br /> 10. The interpretation of compatibility with community is now considering its options in light of the Court's decision.
<br /> character or harmony should be broad enough to He thinks that the city council could ban news racks on public 0"'
<br /> include various contextual relationships between new
<br /> p property altogether. Fischer stressed,however,that neither ,.�,�";:�
<br /> and existing developments(e.g.,contrast, side of the dispute is inclined to litigate the issue any further. It • �V,'7
<br /> assimilation,adoption of format,similarity,etc.).Not is likely that the city will amend the current ordinance to 3,gt ; :
<br /> all existing development,architecture,or man-made -z%,;,�; ,i
<br /> include explicit limitations on the mayor's authority. ; '•:1
<br /> features deserve to be emulated. Design by contrast, • ,,, .;a
<br /> • however,requires a strong visual tension that emerges "
<br /> %»
<br /> from juxtaposing a new structure against an existing §~i•"`r
<br /> structure or surroundings. The importantpoint is that this • e•, 3
<br /> g P Oregon Reaffirms Public t
<br /> tension should be conscious. A new development should �:��
<br /> Access to Beach
<br /> possess characteristics that are intentionally opposite to n
<br /> one or a few of the most prominent attributes of the ` t = "`
<br /> Whose beach is it anyway?This question has arisen in ;;:
<br /> existing structure. Therefore,before selecting a design virtually every coastal state in the nation.In August,a decision `�4' `
<br /> strategy,it is necessary to analyze the visual by the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the public's right of `;
<br /> characteristics of existingsurroundings and to identifythe
<br /> g recreational use and lateral access to all beaches in the state. te• r..,:: ,Y
<br /> most prominent attribute(s)of that design. Only then can The case, involving a dispute between two private property :- -,-
<br /> ..-1
<br /> an"intelligent"contrast be planned. owners,reaffirmed a landmark 1969 Oregon Supreme Court
<br /> Contrast ma be achieved bymanipulating color;form;Y P gruling that guaranteed recreational access along the entire 144..f_L6,coast between the median high-tide line and the visible line of �t "�'texture;scale;layout; visual movement•and �>..
<br /> vegetation/planting. Contrasting the type of use,activity, vegetation. Last months's decision came in McDonald v. . ,' "t
<br /> and economic class is more difficult and controversial. `=mak_ "
<br /> Halvorson, 92 Or. App.478. ..t.
<br /> At issue in the case was whether the privately owned Little >=s�
<br /> Whale Cove,which is separated from the ocean by a small lii :,.`:
<br /> ridge of rock, fell within the boundaries of the public easement fi° ,
<br /> High Court Strikes Down for recreation. Although the court found that there was no '`< ''
<br /> ;;-
<br /> News Rack Controls physical means of access to the tiny cove and that the area was : _;- ._
<br /> not part of the"d sand beaches"recognized in the 1969 % "_f:
<br /> D'- g ttAi ,;,J;
<br /> A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down a decision,it still fell within the area protected for public Pty t` -'`
<br /> Lakewood, Ohio, ordinance that gave the city's mayor recreation. y „�`• '�, '
<br /> "unbridled discretion"over the placement of news racks on The state of Oregon intervened in the case in order to protect •
<br /> , • ,
<br /> z,,,,.-4---,-,•-::',%
<br /> public property. In a 4-3 decision,Justice Brennan wrote of the rights of the public to use beaches. This right is spelled out `:,.i
<br /> the danger of unlimited discretion,concluding that"it is not in Chapter 601 of Oregon's statutes,a statute known as the ` i1•4
<br /> difficult to visualize a newspaper that relies to a substantial "beach bill."This law states that the public has the right to use w?:�.;;,Y•�*,,�.:,v!
<br /> extent on single-issue sales[vending machine sales] feeling the"dry-sands"portion of the coastline. Since the passage of .1.,••,:•;,,,,,A,= .:;
<br /> .ignificant pressure to endorse the incumbent mayor in an the beach bill,the state has tried to avoid a"tract-by-tract" 4
<br /> pcoming election, or to refrain from criticizing him, in order analysis of the public interests in the shore,but it intervened in :),'2,,,,:11 -..;%;k:
<br /> to receive a favorable and speedy disposition on its permit this case because there are more than 60 miles ofY
<br /> rivatel ,7 i.4"i
<br /> P '~
<br /> application."The decision came in Plain Dealer Publishing owned coves,inlets,and rock formations similar to Little ° , ,,h•','
<br /> Company v. City of Lakewood, 108 S. Ct.2138. Whale Cove. • -.•,t,r- K
<br /> The decision stemmed from a dispute between Lakewood The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Nollan v. ,. '•' 4
<br /> 3 • rt';
<br />
|