History

April 2018 – Court Case regarding Illegal Signs

The proliferation of damage to the City of Chicago property stems from a court case that ended in 2018, as cited below.  Since then, the blight caused by this unenforced ordinance has caused irreparable damage to the city.

https://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/511381175-judge-chicago-city-rules-banning-posters-on-lampposts-too-vague-unconstitutional

https://jnswire.s3.amazonaws.com/jns-media/8e/d6/797415/RCP_v_Chicago_judgment.pdf

Case Summary

Employees of the City of Chicago issued RCP Publications Inc. a ticket for a sign advertising a movie screening that was affixed to a city-owned streetlight pole.   Posting "commercial advertising material" to City property is a violation of section 10-8-320 of the Chicago Municipal Code. RCP contends that section 10-8-320 is an unconstitutional restriction on speech, void for vagueness, and overbroad.

A Chicago federal judge has thrown out a citation the city of Chicago slapped on a nonprofit publishing company for sticking a poster on a city light pole, saying a city ordinance forbidding commercial postings on lamp posts doesn’t pass constitutional muster because it leaves too open to interpretation which kinds of posters or speech could be allowed. 

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly said the city’s sign ordinance doesn’t include definitions of “commercial advertising material” sufficient to allow the city to continue to enforce ordinance’s rules.

“Parties … have no guidance on whether their sign will violate the ordinance,” Kennelly wrote. “Likewise, enforcing officials are enabled to make wholly subjective and arbitrary decisions - raising the possibility that signs promoting unpopular causes or events may draw a citation, while others will escape sanction.

The case had landed in federal court in January 2016, when Chicago-based nonprofit corporation RCP Publications sued Chicago City Hall, arguing the city’s sign ordinance violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment by restricting certain kinds of speech posted on public property.

Chicago city officials wrote RCP a ticket over one such poster, which was attached to a streetlight pole at 5701 S. Kimbark Avenue. The ordinance under which the city cited RCP forbids people from distributing “commercial advertising material by means of posting, sticking, stamping, tacking, painting or otherwise fixing any sign … calculated to attract the attention of the public, to or upon any … lamppost.”

In its lawsuit, RCP asserted the ordinance was unconstitutional because it regulates speech by topic.

RCP is represented in the action by attorneys Mark G. Weinberg and Adele D. Nicholas, of Chicago.

In response, the city asked Judge Kennelly for summary judgment, arguing commercial advertising should be easily recognizable to the public under a “common-sense meaning,” which would include speech that would “promote a business or offer goods and services for sale.”

But Kennelly said the city’s suggested rules leave the ordinance much too open for interpretation by city officials, which could lead to some kinds of “commercial advertising” punished, while other forms, which may be more favored by City Hall, are allowed to remain.

“The absence of a definition of this key term is fatal to the ordinance.”

Further, the judge rejected the city’s contentions requiring specific definitions of prohibited commercial advertising speech under the ordinance would create “needless bloat” within the ordinance, saying the definition of such prohibited speech is essential to the enforcement of the ordinance.

“’Commercial advertising material’ is the sign ordinance’s central term, the primary point on which determination of a violation hinges,” Kennelly wrote.

RCP’s General Arguments on the Specifics of the Ordinance

• RCP also argues that the City's evidence does not change the fact that commercial and noncommercial signs ultimately present the same issues: a commercial sign does not impose any burdens beyond those that a noncommercial sign imposes.

• RCP argues that by limiting its prohibition of signs to commercial signs posted on City property, the City has adopted an underinclusive ordinance that, for this reason, does not directly advance its asserted interests.

• RCP also argues that the City's failure to ban noncommercial signs renders the sign ordinance fatally underinclusive.

• RCP contends that political signage, one type of noncommercial signage, produces the same problems that commercial signs do but are left unregulated by the sign ordinance. 

• The short answer to RCP's argument is that the law does not leave the City with a binary choice of banning all signs or banning none. So long as the choices the City makes regarding which types of signs to regulate are not otherwise constitutionally infirm, cf. Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 816 (1984) (exceptions for some types of political content but not others likely would not pass muster), it does not have to eliminate the entire perceived ill all at once. 

• Here the City has chosen to target commercial signs, the type of signs that it reasonably believed imposed the lion's share of the adverse impact on its asserted interests.

• RCP also argues that signs posted by non-profits, which it contends are also noncommercial signs, pose as great or greater a problem as commercial signs, because non-profits experience all the same incentives that commercial entities face but have less resources to channel into paid advertising.

• RCP concludes that for this reason, signs posted by non-profits pose a greater problem than commercial signs in terms of impact on the City's asserted interest. But this argument is speculative; RCP does not support it with evidence, and it otherwise lacks foundation in the record.

• RCP argues that the sign ordinance also fails because there are a number of other ways that the City could have advanced its asserted interests without banning commercial signs, such as restrictions in certain locations, restrictions on the total number of postings, or restrictions on how a posting may be affixed to City property.

• The City's prohibition on the single largest source of the sign problem is a solution that reasonably fits the problems the City has identified.

• RCP argues that the sign ordinance is impermissibly vague because it leaves the term "commercial advertising material" undefined.  This is particularly problematic, RCP argues, for persons or organizations wanting to post signs that arguably involve both commercial and noncommercial messages. That is the situation with RCP's sign. It advertised an essentially political event (the showing of a film with a political message) that involved payment of money (a modest fee for admission). It is also easy to come up with other situations in which a person or organization wanting to post a sign would find it quite difficult to know which side of the line it was on. For instance, a political candidate who posts a sign featuring a link to her campaign website conceivably could run afoul of the sign ordinance—if, say, the website offered items for  sale—but how would she know for sure? And a business that wanted to post signs supporting a Fourth of July celebration, a gay pride event, or an anti-gun control rally and identify its business and address on the sign would have an equally difficult time determining whether City officials would consider its sign to be a "commercial advertising material."

• The City's history of interpretation and enforcement of the ordinance underscores the vague character of the sign ordinance. As indicated earlier, RCP points to deposition testimony from several City employees who provided conflicting accounts of what constitutes "commercial advertising material."

Current & Historical Ordinances

Research was done to investigate all versions of this City Ordinance. The information is captured below:

Effects on the City of Chicago

In the court case testimony, this was stated:

“Sam Karow RCP also contends that Sam Karow, the City's second expert witness, should be excluded. Karow is an expert in advertising and communications. D.E. 69, Pl.'s Ex. 19 at 2 (Karow Expert Rep.). His report describes how commercial advertisers wish to reach many viewers with their ads, how outdoor signs constitute a cheap and effective means of reaching views, and how "[r]evising or removing" the ordinance would produce an increase in the number of signs posted to City property. Karow opines that, because of the popularity, ease, and effectiveness of outdoor signs as advertising techniques, id. at 5-6, lifting the ordinance would produce a "massive proliferation" of posted signs on City property. Id. at 14.”

When using the Tumlbr site, click on the different hashtags and/or use the Search box to look at the different Wards, Streets and Organizations that continue to deface our City.

Additional Effects on the City of Chicago

When these signs are left, along with the tape used to affix them, damage is caused to the City property because water is allowed to collect/stay between the tape(s) and metal,

allowing for a greater furthering of rusting to the metal poles.

**Update - January 2025**

What you probably didn’t know is that within most business districts in the City, there are agreements between the City of Chicago and the local agency (like a Chamber of Commerce) whereby maintenance and updates of street poles, etc, is a cost burdened by the local organization, and not the City itself.

These agreements are specific to each district, and the cost to repaint EACH light pole can run up to $300 per pole.

311 Requests and the Process

Over the past several months, over 100 311 requests have been made in various Wards citing these continued postings and violations of the Municipal Code.

This is a painstaking process because there is no specific 311 category for these types of violations. As you can tell in the list, some of these requests are completed, while others a) state they are Completed, but are not or b) are categorized as ‘Nothing on Site’.

Pictures are uploaded with the 311 request, yet Streets and Sanitation workers state they can’t ‘see’ the image. Therefore, it is a random effort if the posting will be removed. Some postings are removed, and others that are directly across the street, are ignored.

All the while, these postings typically happen within Business Districts, of which, those Business Districts tend to be separated out into different Aldermanic Wards. Therefore, if multiple postings happen on a specific street corner, different Streets and Sans workers will only remove their specific posting, on their side of the Ward.

**Update - January, 2025**

Based on a conversation with various City Departments, it was determined the following regarding notifying the City of illegal postings on public property:

• There is no direct 311 request to faciliate such a request, via any type online method. CDOT, who is ultimately responsible for this action (not Streets and Sanitation) encourages any individual to work through the local Alderman’s office to route that complaint to the correct party.

• 311 must be called and you request an ‘Inspect Public Way’ request or ‘PBD’, stating the organization responsible for violating municipal code 10-8-320, providing address, etc.

• A ticket # will be provided for tracking purposes.

Violations Issued & Cases

After researching the ‘Process’ to cite an organiation for Illegal Postings, a FOIA request was sent to request violations regarding this municipal Ordinance.

The following file was received, which showed recent Violations. Click Here to see the file/list of ordinance violations & related data.

2024 - December - Docket #24DT00076M - Result - No fine issued for Violation

2025 - January - Docket #24DT01002M - Result - No fine issued for Violation

2025 - January - Docket #24DT00866M - Result - No Fine Issued - Prosecutorial Discretion

2025 - January - Docket #24DT00864M - Result - No Fine Issued - Prosecutorial Discretion

2025 - January - Docket #24DT00862M - Result - No Fine Issued - Prosecutorial Discretion

2025 - January - Docket #24DT00871M - Result - No Fine Issued - Prosecutorial Discretion

2025 - January - Docket #24DT00873M - Result - No Fine Issued - Prosecutorial Discretion

2025 - January - Docket #24DT00868M - Result - No Fine Issued - Prosecutorial Discretion

2025 - January - Docket #24DT00880M - Result - Fine Issued - $200

2025 - January - SR25-00037670 - Result - 311 Request Cancelled - 40th Ward

2025 - January - SR25-0037685 - Result - No Action Taken, Sign Removed - 40th Ward

2025 - January - SR25-00064587 - Result - Citation Issued - 48th Ward

2025 - January - SR25-00064591 - Result - Citation Issued - 48th Ward

2025 - January - SR25-00064597 - Result - Said Nothing on Site - 40th Ward

2025 - January - SR25-00082912 - Result - No Action Taken, Sign Removed - 40th Ward

2025 - January - SR25-00082948 - Result - Said Nothing on Site - 47th Ward

2025 - January - SR25-00090907 - Result - Citation Issued - 40th Ward

2025 - February - Docket #24DT01096M - Result - No Fine Issued - Prosecutorial Discretion

2025 - February - Docket #24DT01095M - Result - No Fine Issued - Prosecutorial Discretion

2025 - February - Docket #24DT01094M - Result - No Fine Issued - Prosecutorial Discretion

2025 - February - Docket #24DT01093M - Result - No Fine Issued - Prosecutorial Discretion

2025 - February - SR25-00251956 - Result - Said Nothing on Site - 48th Ward

2025 - February - SR25-00251948 - Result - Said Nothing on Site - 48th Ward

Solutions

Based on the previous versions of the ordinances, the words ‘commercial advertising matter’ seems to be the crux of the entire issue and is in RCP’s entire argument regarding the postings of illegal signage and its ultimate disregard for enforcement. 

Additionally, the Permitted use rules as provided in the actual application are also not enforced.

#1       The simple solution is to remove the term ‘commercial advertising matter’ and revert back to an old version of the ordinance.  The ban would have to be generic, to encompass all types and categories (political included, regardless of business affiliation)) and therefore not limited to certain types of speech, business affiliation, etc.

Based on research from the laywers involved, the simplest solution is to resolve this issue by working on the list of items identified by Judge Kennedy. The lack of clarity on the term ‘commercial advertising material’ is the key. If the city wants to enforce a back on posting ‘commercial advertising material’ on public property, the ordinance just needs to be ammended to clearly define what is mean so enforcement officials aren’t arbitrarily decided on what’s ticketable and what’s permissable.

#2       Additional verbiage should be added to limit the method(s) of posting that would eliminate any such adhesive materials that would cause harm to the city property by means of causing funds to fix/repair and/or replace. 

Example:  Postings can only be affixed using non-adhesive-type materials that do not represent a permanency to the posting or the posting cause damage to the property causing costs to repair/replace.

#3       All posting(s) would need to be removed within a specific time frame.  Therefore, the ordinance could say that a) a date must be affixed to each posting to allow for adherence to this rule or b) if an event is being advertised, then the post must be removed immediately after the event being advertised.

#4       Limit on the number of postings either a) firmly with a specific #/instance or b) a specific number within a designated ward or footage, etc.

#5       Adhesive material verbiage should be added to the Permitted Use application to deter the usage of said destructive materials.  As well as specific verbiage that the sign and application material must be removed or fines would / could be imposed if not removed, or destructive materials are used.

#6       Paint signs and poles with a bump-based paint that will not allow the materials to adhere. (see image)

#7       Begin to enforce the vandalism rules/ordinances that are already on the books, while additionally adding the verbiage to include stickers, signs and postings that would cause unremovable damage to existing property.

#8       Most sign postings are in business districts, and due to many business districts being split between Alderdmanic Wards, requests don’t completely get completed unless you open multiple 311 requests

Example: If someone posts signs on the 4 corners at Foster/Clark, those corners are controlled by 3 different Wards: Foster to the South, 47th, Clark to the East, 48th, Clark to the West, 40th. Therefore, if there are 4 signs posted, one on each corner, 4 311 requests must be made and it is quite likely that 3 different Streets and Sanitation workers will remove just THEIR 311 requests. It’s ridiculous.

#9       Create a 311 category specifically for these types of Municipal Code Ordinance Violations. See 311 page.

#10    Why can’t tickets be issued by Police if/when they see this occuring?

#11    Create a Community Bulletin Board in most neighborhood districts that would allow for this type of signage (faciliated by the closest Chamber of Commerce, etc)