ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI-FOX2NOW.com)\u2014 <\/p>\n
St. Louisans will continue to see a large, anti-eminent domain sign on a brick building near I-44 in south St. Louis City. It's been at the heart of a free speech legal case that had gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. <\/p>\n
But Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the case. That allowed a decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis to stand. Under that ruling, the building owner, Jim Roos is allowed to express his opinion on the building and does not have to comply with St. Louis City commercial sign ordinances. <\/p>\n
Roos' sign says \"end eminent domain abuse.\" He had the mural painted after St. Louis City took 24 rental buildings he owned or managed under a blighting ordinance. <\/p>\n
\"People didn't realize that you could lose your home or business for some private development . Not many people knew it and now they do and our mural, protest mural helped inform the public of that,\" said Roos Tuesday. <\/p>\n
St. Louis City Counselor Patti Hageman issued this statement: \"Of course we are disappointed that the Court decided not to accept review. There is a clear split in the federal circuits as to how municipalities may regulate signs such as this one. In the meantime, the City will continue to look at its own ordinances and amend them as necessary.\" <\/p>\n
A public interest law firm in Arlington, VA argued the case for Roos and his Neighborhood Enterprises, Inc. firm and housing ministry \"Sanctuary in The Ordinary.\" \"This case is very significant in its holding that government may not regulate signs or speech more broadly based on the subject matter or the speech,\" said senior attorney Michael Bindas. Bindas said the city was choosing what topics its citizens could publically talk about by attempting to regulate the protest sign. <\/p>\n
Roos' real opposition was to the use of eminent domain to take private property for another private development. <\/p>\n
\"The state of Missouri still has laws that could allow that building or that area to be declared blighted and still taken by eminent domain. What we do have the right is to protest; that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court indirectly today by not reviewing the case,\" pointed out Roos. <\/p>\n
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals covers seven states so its decisions apply within those states and not necessarily across the country. Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North and South Dakota fall in the circuit. <\/p>\n
Institute for Justice attorney Bindas sees another value to the decision. \"This case shows how inter-conntected our constitutional rights are and how vibrant, free speech protections are essential to the protections of our other rights and liberties including property rights,\" Bindas said. Originally posted here: ST. Continue reading
For additional information contact the Neighborhood Enterprises at http:\/\/www.neapts.com<\/a> or the Institute for Justice at http:\/\/www.ij.org<\/a>. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\nCourt Rules Large Eminent Domain Sign Protected As Free Speech<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"