## Facts

- Pergament operated a modern gasoline filling station within the geographically defined Vieux Carré (French Quarter) of New Orleans.
- New Orleans prosecuted him in recorder’s court for displaying a large advertising sign without permission from the Vieux Carré Commission, in violation of a municipal ordinance regulating signage in the district.
- The ordinance was adopted under La. Const. art. XIV, § 22A (1936), authorizing creation of the Vieux Carré Commission to preserve buildings in the district with architectural and historical value and granting the city power to assign the commission duties it deemed necessary.
- Pergament filed a demurrer and motion to quash, asserting: (1) the ordinance was arbitrary and oppressive and violated due process and equal protection; (2) the city lacked authority to apply the ordinance to a modern, nonhistoric structure; and (3) the ordinance violated a statutory “single-subject” requirement for ordinances in Act 136 of 1898, § 33.
- The recorder’s court sustained the demurrer after hearing evidence and dismissed the prosecution.
- The City of New Orleans appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether La. Const. art. XIV, § 22A authorized regulation of signage on modern, nonhistoric buildings located within the defined Vieux Carré district.
2. Whether the ordinance’s sign-permit requirement was an arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of police power that violated due process or equal protection.
3. Whether the “single-subject” limitation in Act 136 of 1898, § 33 applied to the City of New Orleans and invalidated the ordinance.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the recorder’s court and upheld the ordinance’s validity and its application to Pergament’s station and sign.
- The court held that the constitutional authorization extended to regulation throughout the geographically defined Vieux Carré area, not merely to regulation of “ancient” or individually significant buildings.
- The court held the ordinance was a valid police power measure aimed at preserving the district’s historic character and was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unlawfully discriminatory.
- The court held Act 136 of 1898, § 33 did not apply to New Orleans because the city was incorporated under a prior special act and was not governed by that statute.

## Legal Principles

- A constitutional grant authorizing preservation of a historic district permits reasonable regulation of exterior features, including signage, within the district’s geographic boundaries, even when applied to modern structures.
- Historic-preservation regulations are valid under the police power when reasonably related to protecting the district’s historic and architectural character and preventing visual intrusions inconsistent with that purpose.
- Due process and equal protection are not violated by uniform, nondiscriminatory restrictions on advertising displays in a designated historic area.
- Statutory limits on municipal ordinance form (such as a single-subject requirement) do not invalidate an ordinance where the statute does not apply to the municipality.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated the city’s prosecution and sustained the Vieux Carré sign-permit ordinance, holding that the constitutional authority to preserve the French Quarter supported uniform regulation of signage throughout the district and that neither constitutional objections nor an inapplicable single-subject statute invalidated the ordinance.


City of New Orleans v. Pergament, 198 La. 852, 5 So. 2d 129 (La. 1941)