Citgo, Sponsored by Boston: Why We Shouldn't Landmark Ads

M. McGuire
{"title":"Citgo, Sponsored by Boston: Why We Shouldn't Landmark Ads","authors":"M. McGuire","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3265504","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Citgo sign, a massive lighted advertisement just beyond the bounds of Fenway Park, is a Boston landmark. The sign has been a fixture in the Boston skyline for decades. For almost as many years, the city has debated whether to give the sign protected landmark status, freezing the advertisement—and potentially much of the surrounding development—in place. \nUnquestionably, the Citgo sign and other advertisements like it meet statutory criteria for landmark designation, and landmarking them would serve the goals supposed to be furthered by historic preservation in general. But landmarking advertisements, as opposed to buildings, boats and bridges, presents constitutional and statutory issues that should give landmarks commissions pause. \nThis Note is the first to explore the many legal problems caused by landmarking advertisements. It also addresses certain policy concerns raised by decisions to grant the legal protection of historic preservation laws to ads. In designating advertisements as landmarks, cities expose themselves to takings claims (by affected property owners) and statutory economic- hardship claims (by affected advertisers) that could ultimately force taxpayers to bear the cost of advertising for profitable corporations. And because advertisements communicate, while more traditional subjects of historic preservation do not, landmarking them could also subject cities to compelled-speech claims. Unlike the takings and economic-hardship claims, First Amendment violations cannot be satisfied by paying just compensation. \nThe potential landmarking of the Citgo sign is used as a case study to explain the issues, but the problems would accompany the decision to landmark almost any advertisement. The approaches suggested for decisions to landmark advertisements would serve any preservation commission. \nI have posted the paper on SSRN to be accessed by the Boston Landmarks Commission and other interested parties in the ongoing Citgo sign debate.","PeriodicalId":82443,"journal":{"name":"Real property, probate, and trust journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Real property, probate, and trust journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3265504","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Citgo sign, a massive lighted advertisement just beyond the bounds of Fenway Park, is a Boston landmark. The sign has been a fixture in the Boston skyline for decades. For almost as many years, the city has debated whether to give the sign protected landmark status, freezing the advertisement—and potentially much of the surrounding development—in place. Unquestionably, the Citgo sign and other advertisements like it meet statutory criteria for landmark designation, and landmarking them would serve the goals supposed to be furthered by historic preservation in general. But landmarking advertisements, as opposed to buildings, boats and bridges, presents constitutional and statutory issues that should give landmarks commissions pause. This Note is the first to explore the many legal problems caused by landmarking advertisements. It also addresses certain policy concerns raised by decisions to grant the legal protection of historic preservation laws to ads. In designating advertisements as landmarks, cities expose themselves to takings claims (by affected property owners) and statutory economic- hardship claims (by affected advertisers) that could ultimately force taxpayers to bear the cost of advertising for profitable corporations. And because advertisements communicate, while more traditional subjects of historic preservation do not, landmarking them could also subject cities to compelled-speech claims. Unlike the takings and economic-hardship claims, First Amendment violations cannot be satisfied by paying just compensation. The potential landmarking of the Citgo sign is used as a case study to explain the issues, but the problems would accompany the decision to landmark almost any advertisement. The approaches suggested for decisions to landmark advertisements would serve any preservation commission. I have posted the paper on SSRN to be accessed by the Boston Landmarks Commission and other interested parties in the ongoing Citgo sign debate.
Citgo,由波士顿赞助:为什么我们不应该做地标广告
雪哥标志,一个巨大的灯光广告,就在芬威公园的边界外,是波士顿的地标。几十年来,这个标志一直是波士顿天际线上的一个固定标志。几乎同样多年来,这个城市一直在争论是否给这个标志以受保护的地标地位,冻结广告——以及潜在的大部分周边开发——在原地。毫无疑问,Citgo标志和其他类似的广告符合地标指定的法定标准,并且将它们标记为地标将有助于实现历史保护的目标。但是,与建筑、船只和桥梁不同,地标广告提出了宪法和法律问题,应该让地标委员会三思。本文首先探讨由地标性广告引起的许多法律问题。它还解决了由授予历史保护法对广告的法律保护的决定所引起的某些政策问题。在将广告指定为地标时,城市将自己暴露于(受影响的财产所有者)征收索赔和(受影响的广告商)法定经济困难索赔,这可能最终迫使纳税人承担盈利公司的广告成本。而且,由于广告能够传达信息,而更传统的历史保护主题则无法做到这一点,因此在广告上设立地标也可能使城市受到强迫言论的指控。与征用和经济困难索赔不同,违反第一修正案的行为不能通过支付公正的赔偿来解决。Citgo标志的潜在地标性被用作案例研究来解释这些问题,但几乎任何广告的地标性决定都会伴随着这些问题。建议的决定地标性广告的方法将适用于任何保护委员会。我已经发布了关于SSRN的论文,供波士顿地标委员会和正在进行的Citgo标志辩论中的其他相关方查阅。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信