Signs; provides local government authority to regulate. (SB64)

Introduced By

Sen. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Local government authority to regulate signs.  Provides that a zoning ordinance may include provisions for the regulations of signs in the highway rights of way. Localities may also adopt an ordinance in order to control signs within any highway rights of way and to control local enforcement of such signage. If a locality enacts an ordinance to regulate signs and also authorizes volunteers to enforce the provisions of such an ordinance, the volunteer, and any local government employee, will be personally liable to the owner of the signs for any damage that may result from such enforcement. Additionally, the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner may enter into agreements with any locality, instead of just Fairfax County, authorizing local law-enforcement agencies to act as agents of the Commissioner for purposes of this legislation. Finally, this legislation limits the definition of excavation to not include installation of a sign that is installed by pushing metal, plastic or wooden poles in the ground. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Passed

History

DateAction
01/04/2010Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10102001D
01/04/2010Referred to Committee on Local Government
02/02/2010Committee substitute printed 10104850D-S1
02/02/2010Reported from Local Government with substitute (15-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/04/2010Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/08/2010Read second time
02/08/2010Reading of substitute waived
02/08/2010Committee substitute agreed to 10104850D-S1
02/08/2010Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute SB64S1
02/09/2010Read third time and passed Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/16/2010Placed on Calendar
02/16/2010Read first time
02/16/2010Referred to Committee on Transportation
02/23/2010Reported from Transportation with amendments (20-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2010Read second time
02/26/2010Read third time
02/26/2010Committee amendments agreed to
02/26/2010Engrossed by House as amended
02/26/2010Passed House with amendments (87-Y 9-N)
02/26/2010VOTE: --- PASSAGE (87-Y 9-N) (see vote tally)
03/02/2010House amendments agreed to by Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/10/2010Enrolled
03/10/2010Bill text as passed Senate and House (SB64ER)
03/10/2010Signed by Speaker
03/12/2010Signed by President
04/13/2010Governor's recommendation received by Senate
04/20/2010Placed on Calendar
04/21/2010Senate concurred in Governor's recommendation (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
04/21/2010House concurred in Governor's recommendation (78-Y 11-N)
04/21/2010VOTE: --- ADOPTION (78-Y 11-N) (see vote tally)
04/21/2010G Governor's recommendation adopted
04/21/2010Reenrolled
04/21/2010Reenrolled bill text (SB64ER2)
04/21/2010Signed by Speaker as reenrolled
04/21/2010Signed by President as reenrolled
04/21/2010Enacted, Chapter 777 (effective 7/1/10)
04/21/2010G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0777)

Map

This bill mentions Norfolk, Richmond, Fairfax.

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 1 clip in all, totaling 50 seconds.

Comments

Robert Lauderdale writes:

HB 209 and SB64.

Both will legalize political signs and both will allow commercial signs for periods of time.

It is outrageous but maybe it won't happen, both pending.

SB64 - http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+ful+SB64

If you are not sure if one of your state senators is on the Local Government committee which is where SB64 is now, however you need to contact them to stop this bill.

Maybe you could write your local senator: start here: http://leg1.state.va.us/ enter SB64 in the search and note:

If a locality enacts an ordinance to regulate signs and also authorizes volunteers to enforce the provisions of such an ordinance, the volunteer, and any local government employee, will be personally liable to the owner of the signs for any damage that may result from such enforcement.

SB64, in committee now it is remarkably cynical piece of legislation. It would legalize political signs and open the legal door to commercial signs. It would be absolutely unenforceable and create a god-awful mess on the state's highways. It would make the local jurisdiction responsible for what is now the responsibility of the Commonwealth.

We are living in a time when the public's perception of politicians is as low as I have seen it in years. This just doesn't seem like the right time to generate even more exceptions for the politicos.

The solution to illegal signs is simple....zero tolerance and restoring 33.1-373 to its tough 1993 provisions, plus adding fine revenue sharing. Some politician is going to figure out sooner or later that the overwhelming majority of the public despises illegal signs, especially political signs.

Let them know what you think.

Please contact your elected officials.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Please, yes, allow localities to eliminate this wretched trash from the roadsides.

Bill writes:

I don't care what the law says. If I see any kind of commercial sign in my neighborhood it will be gone.

bandi sshark writes:

What a shame that our legislators are going to legalize street spam. This stuff will be around forever. On of the regular spammers in my locale has already added the following note to his bandit signs >> SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL POLICE - ALL SIGNS REMOVED SUNDAY PM
I suppose that covers the requirement that he date stamp his litter. By design, a clean-up crew will not be able to tell if the signs have been up more than three days.

Susan Lawrence writes:

Amazing that localities have authority to do anything about anything!