Outfront Media, LLC v Salt Lake City Corporation

Outfront appealed the district court judgment upholding the denial of Outfront’s petition to relocate a billboard. The Court affirmed. It held that the compensation provision in the billboard statute, Utah Code 10-9a-513(2)(a) and plainly read to consider denials of nonconforming applications to be eminent domain acquisitions but do not trigger the protections of eminent domain statutes as that would require a rewriting of the statute and impermissibly treat 512(2)(a) as the same as other eminent domain provisions that actually grant eminent domain power and the fact the mayor was allowed to make the decision here does not change the outcome as the decision is merely treated as if it were an acquisition but does not actually make the decision an eminent domain acquisition. It held City had discretion under eh billboard ordinance and state law to deny the application and if the ordinance actually mandated granting certain applications that would be preempted by state billboard law. It finally held the decision to deny here was supported by substantial evidence as City’s mayor had a policy of reducing the number of billboards, the policy did not need to be in writing and the mayor’s policy did not conflict with the ordinance which set out a policy of limiting billboard numbers as it did not aim to increase the number of billboards.