The St. Louis Post‐Dispatch has a story on an important free speech case here in St. Louis. Property rights activist Jim Roos, whose run‐ins with city bulldozers are documented in my recent study, has painted an enormous two‐story mural on the side of one of the buildings the city has threatened with eminent domain. It reads “End Eminent Domain Abuse,” and its location makes it plainly visible for commuters driving on Interstate 55, a major commuter route.
The city isn’t amused, and has charged Roos with having an “illegal sign.” Roos fought back:
Roos fought the citation, claiming the city was targeting him not because of the size of his sign, but because of its message.
“I think if it said, ‘Go Cardinals,’ we wouldn’t have any problems,” Roos said.
The city routinely approves exemptions for large signs. On the same day a city panel rejected Roos’ claim, it granted an appeal by Laclede Gas to display a sign of over 1,000 square feet on the utility’s downtown headquarters.
Even so, content is not the issue, city officials say — it’s keeping the city tidy.
“Can you imagine what our city would look like if everyone were allowed to paint a 363‐square‐foot, two‐story sign on their buildings?” asked City Attorney Patti Hageman.
Roos has taken his case to federal court, where he has drawn the aid of the Institute for Justice, a libertarian advocacy group in Arlington, Va. The interest in Roos’ fight is twofold for the institute, which advocates for both free speech and property rights.
It sure would be terrible if everyone were allowed to express their political opinions by painting murals on their buildings.