Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/09/2003 08:54 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 9, 2003
8:54 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 230
"An Act relating to political signs on private property."
- MOVED CSHB 230(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14
Relating to urging that the 2006 National Veterans Wheelchair
Games be held in Anchorage, Alaska.
- MOVED CSHJR 14(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 288
"An Act changing the name of the Department of Community and
Economic Development."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 295
"An Act relating to the publishing and furnishing of certain
public notices regarding regulations or rules of certain state
agencies; relating to distribution of the Alaska Administrative
Code, Alaska Administrative Register, and supplements to the
code or register; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 230
SHORT TITLE:POLITICAL SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HOLM
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/31/03 0713 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/31/03 0713 (H) TRA, STA
04/29/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
04/29/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/03 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
05/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/06/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard --
Recessed to 5:30 PM --
05/06/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
05/06/03 (H) Moved CSHB 230(TRA) Out of
Committee -- Recessed to a
call of the Chair --
05/06/03 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
05/07/03 1386 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) 4DP 2NR
05/07/03 1386 (H) DP: OGG, KOOKESH, FATE, HOLM;
05/07/03 1386 (H) NR: KOHRING, MASEK
05/07/03 1387 (H) FN1: ZERO(DOT)
05/07/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/07/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/08/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/08/03 (H) Heard & Held Recessed to 3:00
pm to hear only HB 157
MINUTE(STA)
05/09/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 14
SHORT TITLE:NATIONAL WHEELCHAIR GAMES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CROFT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/10/03 0490 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/10/03 0490 (H) MLV, STA
04/15/03 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/15/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/24/03 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/24/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
05/01/03 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/01/03 (H) Moved Out of Committee --
Recessed to a call of the
Chair --
05/01/03 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
05/02/03 1272 (H) MLV RPT 5DP
05/02/03 1272 (H) DP: MASEK, GRUENBERG,
WEYHRAUCH,
05/02/03 1272 (H) CISSNA, LYNN
05/02/03 1272 (H) FN1: ZERO(H.MLV)
05/02/03 1289 (H) COSPONSOR(S): LYNN
05/07/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/07/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/08/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/08/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
Recessed to 3:00 pm to hear
only HB 157
05/09/03 1522 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DAHLSTROM
05/09/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
TODD LARKIN, Staff
to Representative Jim Holm
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 230 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Holm.
JIM CANTOR, Chief Assistant Attorney
General Statewide Section Supervisor
Transportation Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed his written suggestions to HB
230.
MICHAEL DOWNING, Director/Chief Engineer
Division of Statewide Design & Engineering Services
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 230 saying that [the
department] is seeking enough definition so that it isn't left
to define things that the legislature feels it can't.
MARK GNADT, Staff
to Representative Eric Croft
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 14 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Croft.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-60, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:54 a.m. Representatives
Weyhrauch, Holm, Dahlstrom, and Lynn were present at the call to
order. Representatives Seaton and Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 230-POLITICAL SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 230, "An Act relating to political signs on
private property." [Before the committee is CSHB 230(TRA).]
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that he would like to go through the
written remarks of Mr. Cantor, Chief Assistant Attorney,
Department of Law, line by line.
Number 0294
TODD LARKIN, Staff to Representative Jim Holm, Alaska State
Legislature, turned to Mr. Cantor's written suggestions. With
regard to [Section 2(a)(6)](B), Mr. Cantor suggests the language
specify a timeframe during which the signs can be posted. Mr.
Cantor also suggests inserting a subparagraph (H) in [Section
2(a)(6)] that specifies, "in this section, 'private property'
does not include that portion of property subject to an easement
for public transportation." Of the related case law, almost all
of the cases refer to the concerns surrounding the time limit
while a limited number of cases refer to the easement concern.
He noted that he has requested that Mr. Cantor try to produce
some case law that would say time limits or easement
restrictions are legal or have been upheld by courts. Without
the aforementioned, amendments of those type would have to be
avoided because this legislation attempts to open up access to
constitutional rights. Mr. Larkin informed the committee that
the committee packet should include the related case law. He
directed attention to the conclusion on page 7 of the Larry
Whitton v. The City of Gladstone, Missouri case, a federal
district case regarding time limits. He then directed attention
to page 6 of the VAN et al v. Information Council which
specifies, "Regulations which prohibit all political and
ideological signs in a given location, e.g., in a city or on the
state's highways, have been repeatedly found to be
unconstitutional."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM interjected that the cases that Mr. Larkin
is citing are those cases that he believes will make these
requests unconstitutional. He specified that the requests are
for a 60-day limit and clearly define that co-use of the right-
of-way would not be allowed. He noted that the members can read
the cases; the interesting thing is whether it could be upheld
[in court]. The other issue that needs to be discussed is the
fact that the regulatory process of the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) could be done
knowing that the department may face a constitutional challenge
on occasion.
Number 0748
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN highlighted that the next election is going
to be a year from this summer. Therefore, he questioned why he
shouldn't be able to put up a sign [in his yard].
MR. LARKIN pointed out that it appears that all of the courts
that have heard the above argument would agree with
Representative Lynn.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his understanding that any time
limit, including "temporary" would be unconstitutional.
MR. LARKIN recalled that one of the cases in the committee
packet mentioned "temporary" in a city ordinance, which was
struck down. Mr. Larkin said that the aforementioned city
ordinance may have been struck down because the city didn't have
a severability clause. The original version of HB 230, Version
H, included language that specified that the "signs are not on a
permanent base" and thus the sign could be in place in
perpetuity. However, someone posed a situation in which there
was a permanent base for a temporary sign, which the sponsor
considered a friendly amendment. He suggested asking the DOT&PF
representative whether, for enforcement purposes, the department
preferred the language in the original legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM pointed out that [already existing] signs
with a permanent base being used for another purpose often have
political signs below [the permanent sign]. He said he didn't
want to infringe on that right. Representative Holm turned to
Mr. Cantor's written suggestion [to include subparagraph (G)] as
follows: "this section does not authorize indirect advertising
of commercial products". Representative Holm said he wasn't
sure how the aforementioned applied to political signs.
Number 1040
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to a letter from the U.S.
Department of Transportation dated April 21, 2003. The letter
specifies: "The most recent Supreme Court case on residential
signs, City Ladue v. Gilleo, 114 S.Ct. 2038 (1994), held that
residential signs expressing political, religious, or personal
messages, were an important and distinct medium of expression
that deserved protection." Furthermore, the letter specifies
that the signs should be temporary in nature. He asked if this
letter is in reference to the original HB 230.
MR. LARKIN answered that the letter is in reference to the
original HB 230 and the non-permanent base wording was inserted
to satisfy the U.S. Department of Transportation. Therefore,
some reference to permanency should remain in order to address
the federal agency's concern. Mr. Larkin pointed out that this
is a tangled web that tries to use language that stays within
constitutional constraints as well as the wishes of the federal
government. He noted that this legislation includes
restrictions that wouldn't be present had the federal government
not requested them.
MR. LARKIN emphasized that this legislation was structured with
regard to what is and isn't constitutional. Since all time-
limit restraints have been struck down when heard in court, the
sponsor has attempted to address the concerns of those who don't
want perpetual litter as well as the department's need for
enforcement power. The aforementioned led to the language
defining "current relevance" and "date of decision." Although
the aforementioned may be unconstitutional, Mr. Larkin believes
the language is crafted such that the court could view it as
reasonable. The bill speaks to content, which is one of the
things the courts review regarding whether [a state] is
unconstitutionally restricting free speech. However, leaving
political signs as a broad term doesn't actually create a
restriction but rather creates access. Therefore, even if the
content clause would come into play, Mr. Larkin didn't expect
any challenges because the language is allowing rather than
restricting. Mr. Larkin acknowledged that there are already
constitutional questions for the legislation and remarked that
it's better to pass a law and maintain some state control rather
than allow the courts to strike it down and permit everything.
Number 1378
JIM CANTOR, Chief Assistant Attorney, General Statewide Section
Supervisor, Transportation Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law, began with the easement issue. He explained
that most highways are easements and most easements in Alaska
were created as a matter of property law through public land
orders, including Public Land Order 1613. Public Land Order
1613 includes language specifying that the underlying property
owner can't do anything in the easement without a permit. Mr.
Cantor said that he wasn't familiar with any of the easement
cases that Mr. Larkin mentioned. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld
an ordinance that prohibited political signs within the
easement. He explained that modern highways were designed and
courts enforce the "clear zone" concept, which is basically a
zone in which a car can accidentally leave the road and not bump
into anything dangerous. The clear zone varies in width
depending upon the speed of the road and the shape of the road.
Giving a carte blanche that allows people to place things in the
easement creates a public safety issue. Subparagraph (H) he
proposed in his written remarks would address the
aforementioned. Mr. Cantor acknowledged that DOT&PF believes it
would have the authority under existing law, but pointed out
that it's being litigated.
MR. CANTOR turned to his suggestion to explicitly specify that a
political sign is a noncommercial sign. The aforementioned is
important in clarifying the committee's intent. Although the
committee has been discussing political signs as campaign signs,
political signs address a number of issues beyond campaigns.
Mr. Cantor explained that he proposed a time limitation in order
to have a definitive marker. He emphasized that the basic
constitutional rule from the early part of the last century was
that the government has the right to limit the time, place, and
manner of speech. Mr. Cantor noted that at the same time the
least restrictive means is attempted, one doesn't allow a
government official to make content determinations. He
expressed concern that the definitions of "current relevance"
and "date of decision" require a government official to make a
content determination regarding whether an issue is really over.
The "temporary" rule is difficult to enforce and thus a time
limitation [is in order]. He informed the committee that the
cases he has seen deal with 30-, 60-, and 90-day timeframes.
Furthermore, the cases are generally brought by candidates who
often say that it takes a candidate a long time to make
himself/herself familiar to the community, and two months isn't
enough time to do so. Mr. Cantor said that there are no
challenges to long periods of time. If a long period of time is
specified, the government official is provided a clean target.
Number 1754
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN related his understanding that both the
property owner and the owner of the easement can use the
easement. However, he said he understood that the owner of the
easement has priority for the purpose of the easement.
MR. CANTOR remarked that easement is a broad term under the law
meaning that there is some sort of right to cross and utilize
some portion of land. Therefore, this would be dependent upon
the wording of the easement; in fact, there are exclusive
easements. He noted that highway easements under PLO 1613 take
virtually all of the rights of the property owner. However, it
allows the property owner to apply for a permit. Other
easements aren't so exclusive, such as section line easements.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN mentioned that he has an easement in front
of his property and he can plant a tree on it if he wants.
However, the "road people" can cut that tree if they choose to
widen the road. He said he thought the same [logic] would apply
to a political sign.
MR. CANTOR reiterated that easements vary from parcel to parcel.
For the main state roads, which is what [DOT&PF] regulates, the
property owners' use is constrained.
Number 1916
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM surmised that Mr. Cantor is delineating that
roads are state roads because of state money put into them.
However, he pointed out that in Fairbanks there have been many
cases in which signs were taken down because federal money had
been used to refurbish a road in downtown Fairbanks. Therefore,
these aren't specifically state-owned roads. He assumed the
same would be true in Anchorage and Juneau as well.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to Mr. Cantor's suggestion with
subparagraph (C) regarding marking the date the sign was
installed. He asked if the aforementioned is for enforcement.
MR. CANTOR replied yes.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked that Mr. Cantor's suggestions seem
similar to the rules regarding posting signs in state office
buildings.
MR. CANTOR said he wasn't familiar with those rules.
Number 2028
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN directed attention to Mr. Cantor's
suggestion with subparagraph (F) and commented that he knew of a
candidate who paid $20 to place a sign in a noncommercial
location. Representative Lynn asked if Mr. Cantor was
suggesting that a candidate could pay to place a political sign
in a location.
MR. CANTOR said he wasn't aware from where [subparagraph (F)]
came, however, he suspected that it evolved from the fears that
the commercial sign industry would view this as a new revenue
source.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH pointed out that subparagraph (E) of CSHB
230(TRA) includes the language specified in Mr. Cantor's written
remarks regarding subparagraph (F).
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM noted that people who own bus benches are
already allowed to charge people to place political signs on the
benches. Furthermore, borough-owned buses are allowed to have
political and commercial signs on the bus. Therefore, he said
he didn't believe this is an issue that [the legislation] should
enter into.
Number 2150
MICHAEL DOWNING, Director/Chief Engineer, Division of Statewide
Design & Engineering Services, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), clarified that the department has
expertise in the management and operations of the highway system
but [DOT&PF] isn't an expert in free speech. Mr. Downing
explained that he is seeking elegance and craft in this
legislation such that the department isn't left to complete
issues that have been left unfinished. At some point, this
legislation has to be interpreted in real life, and therefore
Mr. Downing said that he is seeking enough definition so that
the department isn't left to define things that the legislature
feels it can't.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM commented that in the past DOT&PF has, by
removing or not removing signs from certain places, exercised
political will based upon the political beliefs of those who
worked for DOT&PF. Representative Holm specified that [through
this legislation] he is trying to eliminate the need for DOT&PF
to make such decisions by defining that there is a
constitutional right to freedom of political expression. This
legislation attempts to provide direction to the department.
However, Representative Holm said he wasn't sure that the
legislature could define the department's actions. This
legislation tries to err on the side of the individual to
express his/her free speech while not placing a burden on
DOT&PF. With regard to marking the sign with the date of
installation, Representative Holm pointed out that it would be
problematic for those who run year after year and reuse signs.
He said this comes down to the following question: "Do you have
a right to have a sign for 10 years on your property if you want
to?" This legislation merely addresses whether a person has a
right to express himself/herself without placing the department
in the inappropriate position of making those decisions.
Number 2423
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG posed an example of a person who wants
to keep a political sign on his/her property for years and
inquired as to why that individual wouldn't have that right. He
said it seems to him that "current relevance" is in the eye of
the beholder. He indicated that it is up to the property owner
when the sign comes down due to the individual's right to
express himself/herself.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH pointed out that these statues were originally
proposed by a group of individuals who were incensed by signs,
billboards, and posters. There was the notion that the public
didn't want the aforementioned visual pollution. Therefore, by
referendum or initiative it was placed on the books. Chair
Weyhrauch said that there seems to be a tension between
accommodating First Amendment rights and private interest
against the public's desire to have an environment as clean as
possible.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that Chair Weyhrauch is referring
to the ballot measure that said, "It's the intent of the people
that Alaska shall remain forever free of billboards." A
billboard is an outdoor commercial advertisement.
MR. DOWNING, in response to Chair Weyhrauch, specified that
Title 19 defines "billboard," which seems to be very inclusive.
Mr. Downing related his understanding that the definition of
"billboard" would not be limited to commercial [signage] but
rather refers to any device intended to distract. The
aforementioned definition has led to some confusion, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that what is being discussed
is a classic example of why the separation of powers provision
is coupled with the free speech provision in the Bill of Rights.
Under the constitution, there is sometimes a higher good that
may be more important than the popular will, which is the right
of [an individual's] free expression on a matter of public
importance. This issue is the right to speak.
Number 2665
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that he didn't believe it's fair to
use the "temporary" language, which leaves DOT&PF in the
position of deciding when to take down what signs. Allowing
DOT&PF to use its judgment is exactly what the committee is
saying that it doesn't want to do.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM reiterated that the [department's] abuse of
this was the reason behind this legislation. If the committee
wants to remove line 18 on page 2, he said he didn't have a
problem with that. Representative Holm explained that this
legislation has been crafted so that it allowed DOT&PF to
approach the unconstitutionality of being able to remove an
individual's right to speech. Although this language is a
potential constitutional challenge, it's done for the purpose of
trying to be responsible to the request by the administration.
He mentioned that ideally he wouldn't want any restriction
whatsoever save the one regarding the signs that pose a traffic
hazard. The language was crafted to help DOT&PF not hinder the
department. "If you don't want it in there, we can get rid of
it all," he concluded.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that he didn't believe laws are
challengeable rather actions are challengeable. Therefore, it
doesn't matter what is in the legislation because there has to
be a case. Representative Seaton interpreted this legislation
to mean that the department must create regulations based on its
judgment in order to make a case and go to court because the
legislature couldn't decide what to tell the department.
Number 2905
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM interjected that the above has already been
done through the department's ability to have rights-of-way.
The DOT&PF has been charged with making sure that the highways
and rights-of-way are safe for the public. Because of the
aforementioned, the legislature hasn't specified when and if
action is taken but rather when and if there is an obstruction,
which is defined. Representative Holm related that [through
this legislation] he is trying to not be too specific so that
the department is free to do its business.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that he didn't have any problems with
the obstruction part of the legislation.
TAPE 03-60, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his understanding that the
intention is to craft legislation that allows political speech
within the limitations such as the "temporary". Furthermore,
the aforementioned is being done outside of the safety issue
that should be taken up by the department. Representative
Seaton expressed concern with regard to asking DOT&PF to
promulgate regulations that have to be vague because whatever
regulations are promulgated will probably be unconstitutional.
Number 2890
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if any legal opinion has been
requested on HB 230.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said that no one has submitted a legal opinion
to the committee.
MR. LARKIN mentioned that there was a verbal discussion with
Legislative Legal and Research Services, which highlighted the
possible problems with content and the date of decision
concerns. He pointed out that the amorphous language isn't
necessary; rather it's an attempt to give DOT&PF passive
enforcement. This legislation attempts to allow DOT&PF to
extricate itself from this enforcement quagmire and then make
its regulatory requirements. He specified that DOT&PF is
covered by the language on page 2, lines 19-20. However, he
acknowledged that the language "or maintenance" could be added
so that maintaining the road's shoulder would be addressed.
Number 2754
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that the committee adopt
[Amendment 1], which read as follows:
Page 2, line 18
Delete subparagraph (B)
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said [Amendment 1] is acceptable.
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that Mr. Cantor's written
suggestions for paragraph (6) have inserted the ", non-
commercial" language. Representative Gruenberg said he believes
the aforementioned clarifies the intent of the legislation.
Therefore, Representative Gruenberg moved that the committee
adopt [Amendment 2] as follows:
Page 2, line 15, after "political"
Insert "non-commercial"
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned attention to Mr. Cantor's
suggestion to insert a new subparagraph (G) and moved that the
committee adopt Conceptual [Amendment 4], which would insert
language saying, "this section does not authorize indirect
advertising of commercial products".
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM inquired as to what that language would
mean.
MR. CANTOR recalled that the concept stemmed from the letter
from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regarding whether
this legislation would be acceptable with federal funding. The
[FHWA] included this as a concern. Currently, there is a case
before the U.S. Supreme Court involving letters sent out by Nike
regarding how well it treats its employees in Asia. Although
Nike says that letter was informational under the free speech
clause while others say that it's commercial speech the end
product of which is to sell Nike shoes.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN posed a case in which a candidate who owns a
business notes his business on his campaign signs and asked if
that would be considered indirect advertising.
MR. CANTOR remarked that with free speech there is a very fine
line between satire and commercial advertising.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew [Conceptual Amendment 3].
Number 2420
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 2, line 25,
the last word of which is "or" while Mr. Cantor's suggestions
use "and".
MR. CANTOR indicated that it was a typographical error.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that the committee adopt
[Amendment 4] as follows:
Page 2, line 25,
Delete "or"
Insert "and"
There being no objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
MR. CANTOR, in response to Representative Gruenberg, said that
his written testimony regarding paragraph (6) subparagraph (A)
the word "and" instead of "or" was a typographical error on his
part.
Number 2310
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to page 3, lines 5-6. However,
he pointed out that if an individual is running for office or
has a campaign for a ballot measure, the television or newspaper
would be paid to carry the advertising, or the person delivering
flyers may be paid. Therefore, he questioned why someone
shouldn't be able to pay someone to put up a sign.
Representative Gruenberg offered to delete the language on page
3, lines 5-6.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH inquired as to how that provision was included.
MR. LARKIN recalled that perhaps it was a suggestion by [Legal
and Research Services] or it may be referenced in the letter
from the FHWA. After listening to the debate, he said that the
provision probably isn't necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that the committee adopt
Amendment 5 as follows:
Page 3, line 4,
Delete "; and"
Insert "."
Delete lines 5-6
There being no objection, Amendment 5 was adopted.
Number 2186
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON mentioned that his community is going to
be upset when the rights-of-way are filled with signs.
Therefore, he moved that that the committee adopt [Amendment 6],
which would incorporate subparagraph (H), as suggested in Mr.
Cantor's written comments. Subparagraph (H) would read:
in this section, "private property" does not include
that portion of property subject to an easement for
public transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected and remarked that he believes the
above language is blatantly unconstitutional.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded the committee of Mr. Cantor's
testimony that a property owner doesn't have the right to put
anything within the state right-of-way, the "clear zone,"
without a permit. Therefore, if signs can be placed in the
right-of-way, then so can bird feeders, trees, et cetera until
it's determined to be a hazard.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM disagreed and interjected that in some
rights-of-way trees can be planted [without obtaining a permit].
Number 2051
MR. DOWNING referred to the FHWA's letter regarding whether this
legislation complies with the Highway Beautification Act (HBA).
He said that it's worth asking whether signs within the right-
of-way violate HBA. He noted his suspicion that signs within
the right-of-way violate HBA.
MR. CANTOR related that in response to other states that have
asked the above question, [the federal government] backed off on
strict enforcement with private property while still being
protective of the right-of-way. As a tort lawyer, Mr. Cantor
informed the committee that Alaska had a "clear zone" case in
which there was a rock in the right-of-way. The state won that
case on summary judgment, but only after spending $290,000. He
also noted that the state could've just as easily lost and spent
more that it did. "Having things in the 'clear zone' can be a
very expensive proposition," he said.
MR. LARKIN pointed out that the FHWA's letter does address this
matter as follows: "Despite these concerns, the FHWA does not
believe that the proposed changes to Alaska law would violate
the HBA." Mr. Larkin highlighted that the federal HBA doesn't
regulate these rights-of-way under discussion because they
simply withhold money and allow the state to regulate the right-
of-way. In response to Representative Seaton, Mr. Larkin agreed
that the federal government expresses its dislike of signs in
the right-of-way by saying that the U.S. Department of
Transportation has the authority to impose a 10 percent penalty
on federal aid if it's determined that the state is noncompliant
with HBA. In cases in which the right-of-way distinctions have
been struck down, the states he researched didn't lose money.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee of the objection to
Amendment 6.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton and
Dahlstrom voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 6.
Representatives Holm, Lynn, Gruenberg, and Weyhrauch voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 6 failed by a vote of 2-4.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved to report CSHB 230(TRA), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes].
MR. DOWNING informed the committee that in 1997 SB 56 passed and
it allowed "Todd" signs, which are a regulated sign to be placed
on private property adjacent to the highway. That legislation,
SB 56, was what caused the reaction that occurred with the
referendum. He pointed out that HB 230 is considerably more
advertising than [the "Todd" signs].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that HB 230 involves a basic
constitutional right while SB 56 involved a [political] sign.
MR. DOWNING agreed that the "Todd" signs are commercial while
those addressed in HB 230 are political signs.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, upon determining there was no objection,
announced that CSHB 230(STA) was reported from committee.
HJR 14-NATIONAL WHEELCHAIR GAMES
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14, Relating to urging that the
2006 National Veterans Wheelchair Games be held in Anchorage,
Alaska.
MARK GNADT, Staff to Representative Eric Croft, Alaska State
Legislature, thanked the committee for hearing HJR 14, which he
said is a good resolution to keep moving.
Number 1621
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt CSHJR 14, Version 23-
LS0709\Q, Kurtz, 5/9/03, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes and
then withdrew his objection.
[No objection was stated and thus Version Q was treated as
adopted.]
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH explained that he made some grammatical changes
to this legislation. Furthermore, he inserted language on page
2, lines 10-12, regarding Anchorage as an wheelchair accessible
city. Also, he deleted the language from [Version H] that
specified that the National Veterans Wheelchair Games are
anticipated to bring in millions of dollars because this is
desired because Anchorage is a good city and Alaska is a good
state. He emphasized that the National Veterans Wheelchair
Games is a very important event and is welcome in Alaska.
MR. GNADT said that the sponsor appreciates the changes.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted his support of the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report CSHJR 14, Version 23-
LS0709\Q, Kurtz, 5/9/03, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHJR 14(STA) was reported from committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:12
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|