# Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. City of Mesa

> Arizona Supreme Court · October 15, 1991 · 169 Ariz. 301

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633449

## Case

- **Full name:** OUTDOOR SYSTEMS, INC., an Arizona Corporation; Milton Lee, Trustee for the Danny O. Lee Trust, Plaintiffs/Appellees/Appellants, v. CITY OF MESA, an Arizona Municipal Corporation, Defendant/Appellant/Appellee; WHITECO METROCOM, INC., an Indiana Corporation, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CITY OF TUCSON, an Arizona Municipal Corporation, Defendant/Appellee
- **Court:** Arizona Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 15, 1991
- **Citations:** 169 Ariz. 301; 97 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 11; 819 P.2d 44; 1991 Ariz. LEXIS 75
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cameron
- **Judges:** Corcoran, Cameron, Gordon, Feldman, Moeller
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633449

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the power given to municipalities under a state statute to “regulate” billboards was sufficiently broad to convey the power to “prohibit” certain types of billboards, where the statute vested the city with “‘broad authority’” to regulate land uses

## Opinion text

CAMERON, Justice,
dissenting:
I regret that I must dissent. I do so for three reasons. First, I do not believe that the government may require the removal of a legal (albeit preexisting and non-conforming) billboard as a condition for a zoning change or issuance of a building permit. To require the landowner to give up what he is legally permitted to have in order to obtain what he may already be entitled to, is bureaucratic extortion, if not judicial extortion.
Second, I object to the sweeping statement “[t]hat billboards pose a significant threat to public safety and the general welfare cannot be doubted.” On the con *311 trary, I have my doubts. Admittedly, much depends on the time and place. An unusually animated billboard may be distracting to a driver, but no more than children, members of the opposite sex or cattle in a pasture. I find nothing in the evidence below to support the statement that billboards pose a significant threat to safety or the general welfare.
Finally, I believe “existing property” as used in the UEMA refers to the billboard itself as opposed to the land surrounding it, as the majority maintains. Therefore, because appellants have not changed the use of the existing property, they are still entitled to protection under UEMA § 9-462.02

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633449. Public record. Not legal advice.