Divito Park loses appeal to keep electronic sign
The owner of a Leisenring ice and roller-skating rink lost his appeal to keep business advertisements on his electronic sign in Connellsville. Doug Corteal, owner of Divito Park, appealed a PennDOT finding that his sign, at the intersections of Routes 119 and West Crawford Avenue, was not in compliance with regulations because it advertised businesses.
According to a Commonwealth Court ruling, Corteal erected the 8-foot by 14-foot single-face sign in late summer of 2000 with the understanding that sign would contain public service announcements. However, after people called PennDOT with questions about the sign’s content, the agency determined that the sign had business advertisements and gave Corteal 15 days to change the sign or his permit would be revoked.
Corteal asked for a hearing by a PennDOT examiner. That examiner determined Corteal was in violation of the Outdoor Advertising Control Act, and PennDOT accepted that finding. Corteal later appealed to the Commonwealth Court, claiming that the act “unreasonably and arbitrarily differentiates between incidental advertising through sponsorship of public service announcements and direct advertising because it did not define those terms.”
Corteal’s permit application indicated he would use the electronic sign to display “events of the day, upcoming events, special announcements, tributes to sponsors, hockey scores and activities concurrent to our programs.”
However, the sign was instead divvied up amongst 12 regular advertisers, according to the court opinion. In addition, one ad was for Divito Park and another displayed the time and temperature, according to the court.
The opinion indicated that Corteal said at the time of the initial hearing before the PennDOT hearing examiner that the sign had been used for other public service announcements.
The 12 sign sponsors bought ad space for $5,000 for five years, according to the court opinion. The opinion indicates that Corteal said the sign provided tributes to its sponsors, not necessarily the sponsors of events at Divito Park.
“What Divito Park is contending, without saying so, is that the Commonwealth and (PennDOT) have no rational basis for treating those two classes differently,” wrote Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini
The judge noted that it was the legal burden of Divito Park and Corteal to show that it was irrational to treat the two forms of advertising differently. Pellegrini noted that the court did not feel that burden was met.
“Sponsors of public service announcements are not paid ads, but instead, serve the purpose of informing the public, while advertisers do so solely for their own profit. Because Divito Park’s sign contains advertising, the Department did not err in adopting the proposed report revoking its permit,” wrote Pellegrini in denying the permit.