You're jumping into an exchange I'm having someone who thinks that if he can dream up a stupid ordinance, then every ordinance in the same category is just as stupid, which is a far more general discussion. I'm not here to debate whether the specific size restrictions here go too far.
If you're saying you cannot imagine any amount or size of signage on someone's property that could reduce the value of the next person's property and therefore need "proof", I'm not sure what you think you're asking for. Am I supposed to hop on Lexis and do hours of free research or something? Am I supposed to cold call some appraisers and ask if it had ever come up?
Though mainly I have to doubt it was an intellectually honest request because really, you can't imagine for example that if one neighbor put up a bunch of billboards on their front lawn (we're talking full size billboards), that that might affect the neighbor's property value? Of course you can imagine that. But like I said, I'm not particularly interested in trying to argue about the exact size or amount of signage is too much because the point was that generally, this kind of law has land use affecting surrounding property value in mind.
If it's an even broader remark and you want caselaw where neighbors went at it over various types of property use that impacted the value of property, plenty of public libraries have basic legal sections. Look for a textbook on Property Law. You may not find anything about signage, but hey, thems the breaks. If you say you cannot imagine any amount of signage causing a reduction of value, then I don't think you're being serious.
Of course, I probably ought not have responded at all in light of the "Hillary supporter" remark. Boring political trolling.
