finding that utility poles are not 12 public forums, but noting that “based upon federal cases, this court determined that 13 parking strips are public forums.”
How later courts described this case
- finding that utility poles are not 12 public forums, but noting that “based upon federal cases, this court determined that 13 parking strips are public forums.”
- “Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ CR 56(c).”
- “Utility poles are an essential part of the City’s power system and they have not been a traditional public forum nor have they been historically held open to the general public.”
- when interpreting our state constitution, federal case law interpreting federal constitutional provisions is persuasive, not binding precedent
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Alexander, C.J.
(concurring) — I agree with the majority that Seattle’s public utility poles are not a traditional public forum as defined by our state constitution. As it points out, the restrictions imposed since 1953 by RCW 70.54.090 belie the notion that utility poles are such a forum. Majority at 357-58. Although the survey of historical photographs cited by the dissent is somewhat compelling, this evidence does not, in my view, trump a statutory restriction that has been in place for half a century. I, therefore, join the majority opinion.
I write separately simply to express my disagreement with the majority opinion to the extent it suggests that we *364 are bound by a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that public utility poles are not a traditional public forum under the first amendment to the federal constitution. Majority at 356. Although we have adopted the federal court’s analysis for determining whether a particular location is a traditional public forum, see City of Seattle v. Huff, 111 Wn.2d 923, 927-28 , 767 P.2d 572 (1989), that does not mean that we must reach the same conclusion under our state constitution.