AgdaPkt 2004-02-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. I Flb-20-04 11 :57am From-DAVIS WRIGHT TREIdAINE LLP 213-533-5899 T-115 P 003/005 F-127 Honorable Mayor and City L:ouncllmemDers February 20, 2004 Page 2 Ii Introduction We reco¡¡nize that a high-profile mal poses significant logistical challenges for the City. However, the City cannot avoid incwring some expense to meet those challenges. The monthly truck parking fee 01$1,765 (as reflected in a Staff Report to the Council) represents an attempt by the City to transfer some of those expenses, including the cost of security, to the media. The First Amendrnent, however, does not permit the City to pass these expenses onto the media, or to lax broadcasters to offset the City's administrative costs. To resolve this issue, we respectfully request that the City limit any fee to an amount no greater than the amount of the lost revenues &oln the parking meters along Middlefield Road during the trial. Tbe City Center Plaza Is a PubUe Forum The courthouse area is a public forum, fron1 which the media are entiùed to broadcut. As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, "'public places' historically usociatc:d with the free exercise of expressive activities," including public areas surrounding courthouses, "are considered. . . to be 'public forums. '" United States v. Grace, 471 U.S. 171, 178 (1983). In such places, the government's ability to restrict constituûonally protected speech, including newsreporting, is "very limited." ¡g, "An absolute prohibition on ... expression will be upheld only if narrowly drawn to accomplish a compellinl! govemmental interest." rd. (emphasis added); ~ä!§Q American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. CitY of Las Vell:as. 333 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) (downtown area is traditional public forum). Con:requently, our clients are entiùed to broadcast from the Plaza unless the City can demonstrate that any restrictions are (I) "justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech"; (2) "narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest"; and (3) "leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information." ACLU, 333 F.3d at 1106 (citation omitted);~!!W!. $ervice Emplovee lnt'l Union v. City of Los AnIleles. 114 F. Supp. 2d 966, 971 (C.D. Cal. 2000) ("secured zone" around políticaì convention not nanowly tailored and did not provide adequate alternative means of communication). The City cannot satisfy any elen1ent -let alone all three elements - of this te$t. The Media Cannot Be Required to Pay the City's Expenses Resulting from the Media's Broadcasting in the Plaza We do not believe that the City need incur any additional costs for policing the area along Middlefield Road simply because media trucks park there. As City representatives have acknowledged, the City's initial estimate of $7,500 per month for each truck was based on a miStaken belief that additional security would be required to protect the media. Because few Redwood City citizens have displayed an interest in this trial, the downtown area has not experienced the crowds that originally were anticipated. We also understand from a City Council Staff Report that the City nevertheless intends to assign at least one, and possibly tWo, police officers to the Middlefield Road area, at an approximate cost of $60 per hour. This is an unneces$ll.I'y precaution. The officers assigned to the downtown area are more than adequate to police the MiddlefÏeld Road area during the trial, just as they do all other trials. We submit that it would be a tremendous waste of City resources to assign even one - much less tWO - officers L'IX 207723vl 3S174-2 l..os Angele.