RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION

IN A CONSIDERATION OF NON-CONFORMING SIGNS AND SIGN SITES, THE PROCEDURE FOR NEGOTIATING AND DOCUMENTING PAYMENTS FOR SIGNS AND SIGN SITES ARE REVIEWED AND THE QUESTION OF SEVERANCE DAMAGES IS ADDRESSED. THE ADMINISTRATION OF REGULATORY CONTROLS SUCH AS ROADSIDE SIGN ZONING LAWS ARE DISCUSSED AND SIX CRITERIA ARE PRESENTED FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF NONCONFORMING SIGNS. ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE NEED FOR CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF ON-PREMISE SIGNS. SIGNS WHICH DO NOT MEET THE PREMISE (DESCRIBED IN REPORT) OR THE PURPOSE (DESCRIBED), MUST BE TREATED AS OFF-PREMISE SIGNS ON THE LOCATION WHERE IT STANDS. STATES WHICH ARE ELIGIBLE FOR BONUS PAYMENTS MUST ALSO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ACT. THE BONUS LAWS MUST ALSO BE APPLIED TO THE COTTON AREAS KERR AREAS. THE DESTRUCTION OF TREES WITHIN RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND THE MAINTENANCE OF ADVERTISING COPY ON SIGNS IS ALSO DISCUSSED. THE PUBLICATION OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS IS REVIEWED AND ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS THEY HAVE INSPIRED. THE QUESTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT IS RAISED BY THE MANNER IN WHICH CERTAIN CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ACT HAS RESULTED IN A SERIES OF ACTIONS WHICH MAY SEVERELY TEST THIS MECHANISM. PENALTIES FOR NOT CONFORMING TO FEDERAL POLICY ARE SET FORTH AND EXAMPLES OF SUCH ACTION ARE DESCRIBED. THE CASES CREATE THE IMPRESSION THAT CONGRESS HAS LEFT LESS ROOM FOR ACCOMMODATION OF DIFFERENCES IN STATE LAW REGARDING HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION THAN IT HAS PROVIDED IN OTHER ASPECTS OF NATIONAL POLICY ON THE FEDERAL AID HIGHWAY SYSTEMS. A CASE OF LITIGATION PERTAINING TO VALUATION OF ROADSIDE SIGNS IS RELATED. THE OBSERVATION IS MADE THAT WHEN RESTRICTION OF USE GOES SO FAR THAT ALL NORMAL USES ARE PROHIBITED, IT SHOULD NOT NECESSARILY EQUATE IT TO CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE, OR LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT VALUATION PRINCIPLES OF EMINENT DOMAIN ARE THE ONLY APPROPRIATE MEASURES OF CONDEMNATION.