This consolidated case raised the question of whether cities in Massachusetts may regulate through zoning ordinances, billboards and signs for commercial advertising in and on the facilities of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). MBTA worked with Clear Channel and Titan outdoor LLC to erect advertisements on its facilities. The parties agree that if the MBTA is required to comply with zoning ordinances in the cities of Melrose and Sommerville with respect to outdoor advertising, they could not do so. The MBTA argues that it is exempt from local zoning, and the cities argue that under the MBTA’s enabling statute (G.L. c. 161A) only services, equipment and facilities are exempt from local regulation, and that advertisements are no services, equipment or facilities. The cities do concede that the advertisements are located on MBTA facilities.
The Supreme Judicial Court reasoned that since the enabling statute grants to the MBTA board exclusive authority to determine the character and extent of its facilities, “the determination by the MBTA board whether and what type of advertisements to erect on its facilities is a determination as to the character of the facilities.” Since it falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MBTA board, the Court concluded that MBTA is exempt from local zoning regulations with respect to advertisements erected on its facilities.
While noting that a statutorily created entity is not necessarily exempt from all regulation, here the Court found that the zoning ordinances would have more than a negligible effect on action reasonably related to the MBTA’s ability to fulfill its essential function and that therefore MBTSA is exempt from such regulation. The court pointed to the statutory scheme which directs MBTA to raise revenues from non-transportation sources, and which specifically authorizes MBTA to generate revenues from advertising. The Court determined that raising revenue from commercial advertising is “statutorily integrated with MBTA’s ability to provide mass transportation services, its essential function…,” and that the zoning ordinances would interfere with that action.
The Court also determined that for these purposes, the MBTA is not considered a common carrier. Since the signs were not located “on public ways or on private property” (see G.L. c. 93 §29), the cities do have jurisdiction to regulate them.
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. City of Sommerville, 2008 WL 880962 (Mass. 4/4/2008).
Categories:
