374 U.S. at 408, 83 S.Ct. 1790. Given this high bar, courts have held that “[aesthetics,” traffic, and “community character” are normally not compelling in terests. See Westchester Day Sch. v. Vill. of Mamaroneck, 417 F.Supp.2d 477, 554 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (“[T]he visual impact of the [p]roject does not implicate a compelling government interest.”), aff'd, 504 F.3d 338 (2007); Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Town Bd. of Town of Windham, 352 F.Supp.2d 297, 304 (N.D.N.Y.2005) (“[WJhile aesthetics and traffic safety are regularly found to. be substantial enough government interests to support a contend neutral regulation, those interests are rarely compelling enough to support a content-based regulation.”); XXL of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Broadview Heights, 341 F.Supp.2d 765, 789-90 (ND.Ohio 2004) (<HOLDING>); Cottonwood Christian Ctr. v. Cypress
holding contribution limits even those that operate as a ban not subject to strict scrutiny holding that aesthetics and neighborhood preservation are not sufficiently compelling interests to withstand strict scrutiny analysis holding that section 922k passes muster under intermediate scrutiny and would also pass muster under a strict scrutiny analysis holding that nearly identical kansas statute did not violate equal protection clause when subjected to strict scrutiny holding first amendment guarantees access to criminal trials and limitations on access are subject to strict scrutiny