City of Columbus v. Georgia Department of Transportation
292 Ga. 878
Ga.2013Background
- This case is the third challenge to OCGA § 32-6-75.3, authorizing vegetation removal for billboard visibility with state payment for trees removed.
- Earlier, Garden Club I found an earlier version violated the gratuities clause; Garden Club II later upheld the amended statute as constitutional.
- HB 179 (2011) expanded the viewing zone and revised which trees may be removed; it added limits on removals in front of signs for landmark/specimen trees or beautification projects.
- Columbus, Gateways Foundation, Trees Columbus challenged the revised statute and the GDOT MOG valuation method for tree removals.
- A statewide injunction halted new vegetation permits; GDOT amended Regulation 672-14-.03 (2012) defining permitted beautification projects.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment upholding the statute as constitutional, with remaining issues on equal protection and beautification project scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does OCGA § 32-6-75.3 violate the gratuities clause? | Columbus asserts it does. | CBS Outdoor/GA contends no violation; statute benefits public with paid removal value. | No gratuities violation; statute constitutional. |
| Does the statute violate the trustee clause by undervaluing trees? | GDOT as trustee is undercompensated by MOG valuations. | Trustee clause does not apply to GDOT regulations or MOG. | Trustee clause not applicable; no violation. |
| Is the vagueness challenge to 'permitted beautification project' valid? | Term is too vague to guide removal decisions. | GDOT rule defines 'permitted beautification project' for clarity. | Not vague; Rule 672-14-.03 (9) (c) provides adequate definition. |
| Was it an abuse of discretion to keep a statewide injunction against permits? | Injunction should not continue without full evidence on Columbus projects. | Injunction appropriate given statewide implications and equal protection concerns. | No manifest abuse; statewide injunction affirmed (as to related issues). |
| Do take-down credits under OCGA § 32-6-75.3 (j) violate the gratuities clause? | Credits constitute impermissible gratuity. | Credits are allowed for removing outdated signs and saving state funds. | No gratuities violation; take-down credits constitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garden Club of Georgia v. Shackelford, 266 Ga. 24 (1995) (initial gratuities analysis for outdoor advertising statute)
- Garden Club of Georgia v. Shackelford, 274 Ga. 653 (2002) (upheld amended statute as constitutional; gratuities analysis)
- Ianicelli v. McNeely, 272 Ga. 234 (2000) (trustee clause scope and fiduciary restraints on public officers)
- Ga. Dept. of Human Resources v. Sistrunk, 249 Ga. 543 (1982) (trustee clause applicability to public officers)
- Bell v. Austin, 278 Ga. 844 (2005) (vagueness standards for civil statutes)
- Foster v. State, 273 Ga. 555 (2001) (civil penalties vagueness tolerance context)