Extortion by NRH City Management Continues

By Ron West

Extortion is defined as an effort to extract money illegally, i.e., the dictionary definition: the act or practice of extorting esp. money or other property; specifically: the act or practice of extorting by a public official acting under color of office. Unfortunately, - at some level, our city officials have decided that they can continue the pursuit of what would have to be considered extortion of businesses in North Richland Hills in relation to the sign ordinance.

Consider the following letter on NRH Letterhead, from Dave Pendley, CBO, Building Official to a business in North Richland Hills dated 9/24/04. This letter is similar to others in the files and was obtained under a freedom of information inquiry:

September 24, 2004

Ms. Roselie Bones

DejaVu Spa and Salon

7904 Bedford-Euless Rd.

North Richland Hills, Texas 76180

RE: Sign permit application for the pole sign alteration adjacent Bedford-Euless Road, located at 7904 Bedford-Euless Road. Application #04-5033

Dear Ms. Bones:

Pursuant to our telephone conversation today, your application to alter your pole sign on the north side of your business (adjacent Bedford-Euless Road) has been disapproved. Please also be advised that your application to alter the sign along Loop 820 has been, and remains, approved.

As you may know, the pole sign along Bedford-Euless Road was modified without benefit of a sign permit on or near May of 2002. The sign ordinance in effect at that time did not allow for its alteration because your primary building was not at least 25,000 SF in size. As a result, “grand fathering” this sign is not applicable and the sign must be returned to its blank form, removed or an application to the Sign Review Board must be submitted for appeal to the City Council within the next 10 days. Please note that an application to the sign review board must be accompanied by photos, drawings, and a $500 non-refundable application fee.

If you have any questions regarding the information presented, please feel free to contact me at 817-427-6308.

Sincerely,

David B. Pendley, C.B.O.

Building Official

Cc: Andres Barbara, Code Enforcement Officer

Penny Peterson, Assistant Building Official

(Yellow highlighting has been added for subsequent commenting.)

Prior to commenting further on the letter, the following is a section of a Texas State Statute that is in force and applicable to the city government of NRH regarding sign ordinance enforcement:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE

TITLE 7. REGULATION OF LAND USE, STRUCTURES, BUSINESSES, AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

SECTION 216.004. MUNICIPAL BOARD

SECTION 216.005. DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION

Found at: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/lg.toc.htm

§ 216.004. MUNICIPAL BOARD. (a) If a municipality 
requires the relocation, reconstruction, or removal of a sign 
within its corporate limits or extraterritorial jurisdiction, the 
presiding officer of the governing body of the municipality shall 
appoint a municipal board on sign control. The board must be 
composed of:
 (1) two real estate appraisers, each of whom must be a 
member in good standing of a nationally recognized professional 
appraiser society or trade organization that has an established 
code of ethics, educational program, and professional 
certification program;
 (2) one person engaged in the sign business in the 
municipality; 
 (3) one employee of the Texas Department of 
Transportation who is familiar with real estate valuations in 
eminent domain proceedings; and
 (4) one architect or landscape architect licensed by 
this state. 
 (b) A member of the board is appointed for a term of two 
years. 
 (Highlighting added for subsequent comments.)
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amended 
by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 951, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 
1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 22(47), eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
 
 
 § 216.005. DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION. 
 (a) The municipal board on sign control shall 
determine the amount of the compensation to which the owner of a 
sign that is required to be relocated, reconstructed, or removed is 
entitled. The determination shall be made after the owner of the 
sign is given the opportunity for a hearing before the board about 
the issues involved in the matter.
 (b) In any court proceeding in which the reasonableness of 
compensation is at issue and the compensation is to be provided over 
a period longer than one year, the court shall consider whether the 
duration of the period is reasonable under the circumstances.
 
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. 
 
 Having read this far, you can already begin to see a
 problem in that NRH does not have a Sign Review Board 
(Municipal Board) as specified by the State Law that 
allows them to force removal or destruction of signs. 
Mayor Trevino – during a recent City Council Meeting 
with a hearing scheduled on a sign application, called a 
meeting of the Sign Review Board during a City Council 
Meeting with the implication that the members of the 
Council fulfilled this responsibility. If there was a specific 
ordinance in effect governing pole signs outside the 200 
foot corridor, the Council could legally rule on new 
applications. This is not to be confused with the Sign 
Review Board (Municipal Board) required by state law and 
the Council cannot be that Board. Please note that State 
law is very specific as to the requirements for and the 
composition of the Sign Review Board.
 
 Now look at the letter from city building official 
to Ms. Bones. In the letter he references that an 
application for modification to a pole sign was made but 
denied. He does not say who denied the application but is 
plainly trying to imply that a legal governing body made 
this decision. Since no such legal body exists in North 
Richland Hills, who made this decision? Whoever it was 
had no authority under State law to make this decision at 
this time. 
 
 The city staff goes further in this letter to demand 
that the sign be painted out or removed thereby denying 
this business owner the right to use the sign. In the same 
sentence, the city demands a non-refundable extortion 
payment of $500 for an application to a non-existent 
board. The demand  makes no reference or offer to 
compensate the business owner for taking away use of the 
sign as required by State law. The letter is further based 
on a city ordinance that does not appear to have any 
wording relating to the regulation of pole signs outside of 
the 200 ft Highway 820 corridor. This letter exhibits the 
policy set from the City Managers Office under direction 
from our City Council.
 
 There is no argument about whether NRH or any 
city can regulate signs – only a requirement that such 
regulations be in full compliance with State legal 
requirements for such governance.
 
 In NRH, at some point in time, the City Council 
decided that all pole signs more than 200 feet from Loop 
820 were eyesores and had to be removed or rendered 
useless over future years. No records have been found to 
date that show any public forums or council discussions 
about the current sign ordinance that has been used to 
illegally cause the destruction of or take away the use of 
pole signs outside the 200 foot corridor and no offer of 
remuneration for the denial of use or removal of the signs 
has been made – as required by law. Discussions must 
have taken place but like other city records, they seem to 
be missing or non-existent. In some cases, legal pole signs 
have been required to be removed by new businesses 
prior to the city approving a Certificate of Occupancy 
which seems to be form of blackmail.
 
 Approximately two years ago, the City Council 
deleted references to pole signs outside the 820 corridor 
completely but they continued to direct Code 
Enforcement Personnel and Building Inspection 
Personnel to enforce the ordinance as if such an 
ordinance was in effect. They were able to continue this 
practice by a heavy handed series of threats to any 
business owner who dared to question their authority. 
Threats were for removal or pulling of the Certificate of 
Occupancy (for which no statutory authority existed) and 
citations (like traffic tickets) to be issued for each day the 
business was not in compliance with the wishes of the city 
official. Each citation is enforced by Municipal Court with 
a fine of $252 each – even though there was no ordinance 
that was in effect or in compliance with State law.
 
 As you would expect, most business owners cave 
in because of the enormous legal expense required to fight 
the city. This is doubly true in NRH because the City 
Attorney directly benefits by having to defend the city 
against suits of this nature.
 
 As this column is written, according to a 
conversation with a Code Enforcement Official of the city, 
the regulation of pole signs – without any supporting 
ordinance – is continuing today by direction from the 
highest levels of our city government. So far the issue of 
bringing the existing sign ordinance into compliance with 
State law has apparently been thwarted by opinions from 
Mr. George Staples, City Attorney and by the recent 
addition of a footnote to the ordinance by the council.
 
 There has been no effort made to create a legal 
Sign Review Board as required by State law.
 
 NRH is not a renegade city that has the right to 
ignore laws in order to impose the local definition of 
beauty on its residents. It is incumbent upon the City 
Council and City Manager to stop the efforts to extort fees 
for an illegal or none existent sign review board. The 
citizens of NRH need to take note that the sitting City 
Council is not a legal sign review board – again under 
State law. The City Council needs to make provisions – 
pursuant to State law – to pay existing sign owners for the 
denial of use or destruction of existing signs due to 
requirements over the past two years by city officials.
 
 Any businesses that have been damaged by these 
illegal actions of city officials should be encouraged to put 
such documentation in writing and submit it to the City 
Manager of NRH. To help build a records base to help 
move the city into compliance with state law, a copy of any 
submission to the City Manager may also be submitted to 
NRHOnline c/o Ron West, Publisher, 6304 Glenview 
Drive, NRH, Texas 76180. You can monitor further 
reporting on this issue on the Internet at: 
 
http://www.nrhonline.com 
 
 As the facts indicate, the current NRH Sign 
Ordinance and its amendments are not in compliance 
with State Law and thereby, much of it is illegal and 
unenforceable. The most important point is that our City 
Council and City Management is aware of this but so far 
and has chosen not to obey the applicable laws.
 
 Is this the kind of city government that you 
truly want?