Skip to content

Massachusetts Legal Resources

Massachusetts Legal Resources & News

Menu
  • Massachusetts Legal News
  • Sample Page
Menu

Are Boston Billboards a Public Nuisance?

Posted on March 28, 2013

A Boston judge recently ordered Sponsor Co. to remove these two signs hanging on a Bowdoin Street building.

A Boston judge this week ordered a local billboard company to remove two signs hanging on a Bowdoin Street building.

According to a Boston Herald report, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation had filed a lawsuit in February against Sponsor Co., seeking to force the company to remove two 25-by-40-foot signs facing Cambridge Street and to pay a $ 1,000-a-day fine since Nov. 30, when the company was warned that the signs were illegal because the company lacked the required permits.

In her decision, the Suffolk Superior Court judge wrote that, “Erecting or maintaining outdoor advertising in violation of any provision of [state law] is considered a nuisance” and that violating the law “adversely affects the public,” the Herald reported.

Sponsor Co. representatives reportedly plan to remove the signs and to apply for a state permit, which the company’s attorney said the state should be required to grant according to state law governing outdoor advertising, according to the Herald article.

In December, the Boston Zoning Commission unanimously passed an amendment banning new billboards, signboards and other outdoor ads from Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Kenmore Square and Financial District, while requiring Zoning Board approval for new signs in some areas of South Boston and Newmarket Square.

So what do you think: Are large outdoor signs, billboards in certain areas—or anywhere in Boston—a public nuisance? Do you think the signs distract drivers, invite graffiti or are just an eyesore on the city? Share your thoughts on the issue in the comments section below.

SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates

South End Patch

1 thought on “Are Boston Billboards a Public Nuisance?”

  1. Pingback: Giffarine

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

  • COMMONWEALTH vs. MICHAEL NOGUERA
  • COMMONWEALTH vs. MICHAEL NOGUERA – Summary
  • COMMONWEALTH vs. BYRON PALMER.
  • Commonwealth v. Palmer (AC 24-P-365) COMMONWEALTH vs. BYRON PALMER – SUMMARY
  • Hello world!

Recent Comments

  1. มวยสดวันนี้ เดิมพันมวยครบวงจร on Commonwealth v. Carr (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-068-13)
  2. Land Clearing Tucson on Ciampa v. Bank of America, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-109-15)
  3. เช็คผลมวยสดวันนี้ on Markey Wins Senate Special Election
  4. Dog Rescue Services on Theophilopoulos, et al. v. Board of Health of Salem, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-028-14)
  5. ถมดินสมุทรสงคราม on Smurfs Help Us Make America Bluetiful (Sponsored)
©2025 Massachusetts Legal Resources | Design: Newspaperly WordPress Theme

Powered by
...
►
Necessary cookies enable essential site features like secure log-ins and consent preference adjustments. They do not store personal data.
None
►
Functional cookies support features like content sharing on social media, collecting feedback, and enabling third-party tools.
None
►
Analytical cookies track visitor interactions, providing insights on metrics like visitor count, bounce rate, and traffic sources.
None
►
Advertisement cookies deliver personalized ads based on your previous visits and analyze the effectiveness of ad campaigns.
None
►
Unclassified cookies are cookies that we are in the process of classifying, together with the providers of individual cookies.
None
Powered by