On Wednesday, Potts said the city restricts signage based on the content, as ordinances specifically target advertising signs but not other signs like political or real estate signs. This gives city employees too much discretion, he said. He cited the Supreme Court case Reed. v. Town of Gilbert, which he said overturned a similar municipal ordinance.

Potts said that in his opinion, the question of constitutionality wouldn’t even be a “close call" before a court, and that the UDC had a “chance to right this wrong before we ask the federal courts to do it.”

He said he thought the federal court would certainly overturn the ordinance, which would have a broad impact on the city.

Lara Mainella, assistant city attorney, said it wasn’t in the UDC’s purview to decide on the constitutionality of the ordinance, nor its responsibility to protect the city from a law suit.

The commissioners seemed to agree. Cliff Goodhart began the discussion by asking the Adams team to identify where Tucker made an error in rejecting the permits.