Town Council votes on bus ads

After a public debate that lasted nearly four months, the Chapel Hill Town Council has finally made a decision on a bus ad policy.

The council voted 5-2 at a meeting Monday night to designate the inside of Chapel Hill Transit buses as a limited public forum.

This will allow political and religious ads to appear as long as they are not deemed “disparaging” or “disrespectful”.

The policy differs from the original one passed in June 2011 that limited political and religious ads to elections.

Council member Jim Ward, who voted for the policy, said it is important to acknowledge the number of UNC students and employees whose only option is to ride the bus.

“There is a significant portion of our ridership that are captive,” he said.

“I think that’s a significant difference from most transit systems that you will run across.”

Council member Donna Bell also voted for the policy and thinks the policy the council approved is a good compromise between protecting free speech and making sure riders feel comfortable.

“It says that we are still proponents of respectful speech in Chapel Hill, and we want there to be discourse, but we don’t want to harm folks,” she said.

The controversy surrounding bus ads began in August when the Church of Reconciliation
purchased an ad advocating the end of military aid to Israel.

After discovering it had been following a draft policy that allowed religious and political ads — and not the policy adopted in 2011 — the council voted to freeze all new advertising on Oct. 24.

On Nov. 27, the transit partners — which include Carrboro, Chapel Hill and the University — met to discuss the bus ad policy.

Though the Carrboro Board of Aldermen supported a policy that would have defined the space as a public forum, the partners settled on supporting buses as a limited public forum.

Council member Matt Czajkowski, who voted against the policy at Monday’s meeting, said the term disrespectful would be difficult to define.

“As far as I’m concerned, I don’t think you can do it,” he said. “Having to apply those judgments is dicey business.”

Czajkowski said the policy opens up the potential for a slew of lawsuits and would ultimately increase the town’s legal costs.

Resident Adam Goldstein, a member of the advocacy group Voice for Israel, shared these concerns at the meeting.

“None of us wants to see our tax dollars spent on council lawsuits,” he said.

Town attorney Ralph Karpinos said the definition of “disrespectful” will be left up to the courts.

“We do it on a case-by-case basis,” he said.

Karpinos said the Church of Reconciliation’s ad would not likely be considered disrespectful and would be allowed to stay under the new policy.

He emphasized that it is important that the policy allows ads of the opposite viewpoint to run.
“Under any standard you’re looking at, viewpoint neutrality is the key,” he said.

Contact the desk editor at city@dailytarheel.com.