Billboard battle rejoined

Sign owner claims Whitefish not administering law fairly

A billboard at the former Greenwood Trailer Court in Whitefish was taken down by city workers Tuesday in the wake of a federal court ruling that denied the sign owner a preliminary injunction to keep it.

The billboard battle is far from over, though, as the sign owner sets the stage for a federal jury trial.

In one corner is the city of Whitefish, alleging the sign is illegal because the city's sign law prohibits off-premise signs. As long as Greenwood Trailer Court owner Dennis Rasmussen used the sign to publicize the trailer court, it was legal, but no other advertising could appear on it.

In the other corner is sign owner In Sight Advertising II of Park City, Utah.

In Sight bought the sign from Rasmussen after he closed the trailer court last year, got a sign permit from the state and proceeded to use the billboard to advertise The Pines, a high-end real-estate development. The company alleges its right to equal protection has been violated because there are several other off-premise signs within the city that haven't been removed.

In Sight also wants compensation for what it deems an unconstitutional taking of property.

WHITEFISH HAS a history of doing battle over billboards. Several years ago the city sued Montana Media Inc. to have two off-premise billboards taken down. That case went to the Montana Supreme Court, which upheld the city's sign law. City Attorney John Phelps cited the high-court ruling in correspondence asking In Sight to take down the sign.

Federal Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch also cited the Montana Media Supreme Court decision in his ruling to deny a preliminary injunction for In Sight to keep the sign up.

But the Montana Media case is not a precedent in this case, In Sight lawyer Chad Wold of Whitefish maintained. In Sight's lawsuit is about fairness.

The city's sign regulations, as applied to the In Sight billboard, impose a greater restriction on it than on other owners of off-site signs in the city, the lawsuit contends. That violates In Sight's rights - specifically the right to equal protection under the law - under both the Montana and U.S. constitutions, according to the lawsuit.

Among the remaining off-premise signs in Whitefish are two billboards - one near the LDS Church and other on the west side of the U.S. 93 and Montana 40 intersection. The Supreme Court ruling was issued in 2003, but the city hasn't asked those sign companies to remove the billboards.

Phelps said the city hasn't sued the other sign companies, both of them large national sign corporations, because "it's a matter of time, effort and resources."

Coincidentally, Roger Nastase, a principal with In Sight, also was a principal with Montana Media.

"Nastase's biggest complaint was that we weren't going after all the sign companies, that we were singling him out," Phelps said. "But we had no idea Nastase was back in the picture."

Wold said the city has "gone after" several small-business owners to have off-premise signs removed and pointed to testimony from Phelps at a city hearing that backs up his client's claim. During a May 30 hearing before Whitefish Zoning Administrator Wendy Compton-Ring, a transcript indicates Phelps admitted that In Sight's criticism of the city for not pursuing the billboard (near the LDS Church) owned by Lamar is "perhaps well-founded.

"They had the same criticism when we were suing Montana Media and we said that we would get to Lamar, that it was just luck of the draw they were picked first," Phelps said at the hearing. "And we really will get to Lamar. It was partly the terrible expense and time-consuming, very expensive for the city and knowing that Lamar is a national sign company with substantial resources and we'll probably have to do the same thing all over again with them that has, I guess, caused me to not get with it right away.

"And I intentionally delayed that, but it's been an intimidating project knowing we'll probably once again have to engage in three years of litigation and probably have to go to the Montana Supreme Court to get the Lamar sign removed," Phelps continued.

Wold contends that Phelps' testimony implies that city sign laws apply to small-business owners, "but if you've got money it doesn't apply."

WOLD SAID he didn't expect to get the preliminary injunction his client requested from the federal court. It was simply a part of the process of building the case into a federal jury trial.

He chose federal court because the case deals with U.S. Constitution issues and "there's a lot of federal law for outdoor signs." Federal court also processes cases quicker than state court.

Wold said a representative of In Sight - unaware the city was removing the billboard that morning - traveled to Whitefish on Tuesday to take down the sign.

Late Tuesday afternoon, Wold said Rasmussen, who still owns the trailer-court property, had advised him he was considering filing trespassing charges against the city because the city didn't have a court order or warrant to come on his property.

Phelps countered that Whitefish zoning regulations allow the city access if officials have deemed a sign unlawful.

"We can go onto property and remove it," Phelps said. "We don't believe it's a trespass."

Wold said city law doesn't supersede property rights and maintained the city's haste in removing the sign was "completely unwarranted."

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by e-mail at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com