Well, horse-puckey. What should I do?

[BLS]

Letter from my City Hall today.

Dear Current Resident,

The City of Hastings (MN) recently noticed a banner was placed on the fence behind the home at (address). Please note, the City Of Hastings Sign Ordinance does not allow banners in the residential district.

Therefore, the banner must be removed by October 8th, 2007.

Please contact me with any questions at 651-480-2377.

Sincerely,

Kari Barker
Associate Planner

Do I remove it....or do I fight it?

Here's why I ask.

Just down the street is our local highschool football stadium.
And there are a TON of banners on there from local businesses, etc.
That Stadium is right in the middle of a residential area.

Here's photos of my signs. :D

The 3rd image shows a school board candidate, who stopped by yesterday to ask if they could put a sign up there. I said sure, if you donate $5 to Ron Paul's campaign. He did, so I let him. Think they'll ask me to take them down?

I am going to call her tomorrow....should I record my conversation?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2184/1510325259_df93e07a45.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2191/1510323379_dc4afc7e43.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2396/1510324215_ae18feaa04.jpg

[ThePieSwindler]

do you own the property? tell them to shove it (with a little more politeness, of course)

[0zzy]

? if it's your property, why not? That's ludicrous if you can't.

[BLS]

do you own the property? tell them to shove it (with a little more politeness, of course)

Yes, this is my home.

[itsnobody]

What!!!!!!? If its on your private property, then why is it illegal? Otherwise then ALL those Ads would be illegal....so tell them to STFU and go home and leave you alone

Also all those political signs people stick in their yard would be illegal too...

[BLS]

I own the home, and I purchased the sign. It was not given to me from the campaign.

[ThePieSwindler]

Yes, this is my home.

then tell them to shove it, and cite those banners near the football stadium as a contradiction. DO NOT be a jerk about it, of course, be genial and understanding, but also firm. Tell them private property rights are more important than town ordinances, at least if the banner is appropriate (like a presidential candidate)

[UtahApocalypse]

Tomorrow is Monday, contact a lawyer, possibly the ACLU (yes they may do some crazy crap, but they do help on free speech)

[liberatenyc]

Replace the banners with signs. Lots of signs.

[ksuguy]

It is your fence, tell them to fuck off.

[Drknows]

I own the home, and I purchased the sign. It was not given to me from the campaign.

Make a stand call the media. Whats the worst they can do to you? Fine? Court? Tazor Bro?

[LibertyEagle]

Check the ordinance. They say they do not allow "banners". Does the ordinance say anything about signs?

[ThePieSwindler]

It is your fence, tell them to fuck off.

But remember to be polite about it...

[0zzy]

Contact the media
nother way to get paul in the media!

[OptionsTrader]

I'd tell them to fine you and then take it up with the ACLU.

[ksuguy]

Yes, tell them to fuck off politely. Then see if they would like a campaign Slim Jim. :)

[davidkachel]

With any luck they'll make a big deal out of it and RP will get lots of free publicity.
Just make sure you can afford it!

[LibertyEagle]

This happened to someone else. Remember? He got out of it. Does anyone remember what he did? I know he contacted the media and they did a story on it. Did he also contact the ACLU? It might be worthwhile to contact him and have a little chat.

[foofighter20x]

Tomorrow is Monday, contact a lawyer, possibly the ACLU (yes they may do some crazy crap, but they do help on free speech)

This is what I was going to say.

Also, don't call the city: let the ACLU call them. The ACLU already got a city in FL to back down from harassing a RP supporter with the same thug tactic.

[BW4Paul]

Tomorrow is Monday, contact a lawyer, possibly the ACLU (yes they may do some crazy crap, but they do help on free speech)
Call them first before going to the ACLU! It's entirely possible that you can have it on your property once they realize that you bought the sign yourself and that it is not affiliated with the campaign. Make sure that whomever you are talking with understands this, as it apparently is legally significant in some cases.

Then, if that doesn't work, you can try the ACLU (if you're up for that big of a battle). Or, you could just do what liberatenyc says, and post a bunch of signs.

In any case, I'm a big believer in trying to work out these problems yourself, first, before running to the ACLU. Don't get me wrong- I'm glad we have the ACLU for things like this- but it seems best to only go to them after you've tried other venues of recourse.

[OptionsTrader]

If you get fines, start a chip-in :D

[DrNoZone]

Tell them to show you the law. And then tell them that you will remove yours only if all other similar signs in your neighborhood are taken down. Do this in a letter, sent registered mail and ask for a response within 30 days.

[UtahApocalypse]

This happened to someone else. Remember? He got out of it. Does anyone remember what he did? I know he contacted the media and they did a story on it. Did he also contact the ACLU? It might be worthwhile to contact him and have a little chat.

I believe that the ACLU was indeed involved in that. Someone needs to find that old thread.

BLS, I hope that you are able to take a stand on this. We will support you on it I am sure. This is what we all are fighting for, we can't just rollover and give away our rights on a whim.

[Corydoras]

Isn't tomorrow a holiday?

[itsnobody]

Its your private property, its 100% legal...there's nothing illegal about it, they can't tell you you just aren't allowed to have it as long as you own the property

[Kregener]

Send them all a copy of "The Ballad of Carl Drega".

;)

[G-khan]

"Just down the street is our local highschool football stadium.
And there are a TON of banners on there from local businesses, etc.
That Stadium is right in the middle of a residential area."

I would demand that they take those down first or else they are just trying to suppress your political statement because of their own political views..

Turn it around on them and make it an issue of first amendment rights to free speech?

They will need to show you a law that says the others can have their banners and you can't. My guess is they won't have it?

[Bradley in DC]

Tomorrow is Monday, contact a lawyer, possibly the ACLU (yes they may do some crazy crap, but they do help on free speech)

Institute for Justice might help too.

[BLS]

Send them all a copy of "The Ballad of Carl Drega".

;)

What's that?

[Corydoras]

Call the school board candidate's office and tell them the zoning people are trying to shut down their campaign and can't they do something about it.

What goes for the local candidate goes for the RP banner.

[lx43]

This is one example why people are so angry in this country.

1. You own the property but the govt tells you what you can and can't do with it.

2. Then they force you to pay them for the right to keep your property you paid for ie property taxes.

I say fight this.

[bbachtung]

Oh my God, you live in a socialist paradise:



In 1995, the Hastings City Council adopted a property maintenance ordinance which provides a practical method to regulate the maintenance and use of existing properties within the City of Hastings. The purpose of the ordinance is to protect, preserve and promote public health, safety and welfare.

http://www.ci.hastings.mn.us/PlanningDev/BuildingSafety/BDGCodeEnforcement.html

[bbachtung]

What's that?

Whatever you do, please do not send anything about Carl Drega. You will get a visit from every law enforcement agency you can imagine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Drega

[Tin_Foil_Hat]

Since you owe your house, just paint the stencil on your siding. That isn't a banner. :D

[max]

FIGHT IT!!!!! and be a prick about it

I'll tell you why.

If u call the local news media you'll generate $1000's in free publicity...

if they push it and hit u with a fine....just post the ticket here and believe me....we got your back man...

go for news coverage like that dude in florida who had a similar issue

[foofighter20x]

Sorry about the title change... Couldn't resist! :D

[Kregener]

Okay...so send them copies of "Unintended Consequences" instead...

[sbradbury]

fight it.

[bbachtung]

There are 100 pages of regulations in your city governing land usage alone (they don't have enough time on their hands). The PDF is here http://www.ci.hastings.mn.us/InsideCityHall/Ordinances/CodeTitle15/CodeTitle15.155.pdf

The definition for banner is:



BANNERS. Attention getting devices that resemble flags and are of a paper, cloth, or plastic like consistency.


The good news is that if you put it on a pole, then it magically turns into a flag:



FLAG. A rectangular piece of fabric of distinctive design mounted on a pole used as a symbol (as a nation), signaling device (nautical), or attention getting device (advertising).


Just be careful around those code enforcement officers, the BTK serial killer was one of the most dedicated code enforcement officers in Wichita, KS.

[UtahApocalypse]

Researching their city ordinances, i have so far found the following:

http://www.ci.hastings.mn.us/InsideCityHall/Ordinances/CodeTitle15/CodeTitle15.155.pdf


Section: 155.08 Signs, Title (b) Signs permitted without a permit.
(3) Election/campaign signs on private property provided the signs are posted no sooner than 100 days before a city, school, county, state, or federal election and removed within 10 days following an election. No election signs shall be affixed to utility poles;
(11) Temporary ribbons, banners, pennants, and similar devices are allowed in commercial, industrial, and public institution districts. The devices shall be removed if they become torn, discolored, or in any way damaged to modify their original appearance. Businesses and/or property owners utilizing these temporary devices that include advertising and/or a message shall be allowed only a total of 90 days during any 12-month period. Only 1 device shall be used at a time, and the maximum size of the device shall be equal to or less than the monument sign standards for the district in which the site is located, or in the case of the East 2nd Street Historic District or Downtown Core District, equal or less than the wall sign standards;

I am NOT a LAWYER, Or LEGAL Representitive. But from my reading of the entire section you currently ARE within the laws of your city.

FIGHT THIS!

[heiwa]

Here's the link to the folks in Florida:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=20415&highlight=aclu

In Peace,
Jen

[BLS]

There are 100 pages of regulations in your city governing land usage alone (they don't have enough time on their hands). The PDF is here http://www.ci.hastings.mn.us/InsideCityHall/Ordinances/CodeTitle15/CodeTitle15.155.pdf

The definition for banner is:



The good news is that if you put it on a pole, then it magically turns into a flag:



Just be careful around those code enforcement officers, the BTK serial killer was one of the most dedicated code enforcement officers in Wichita, KS.

Wow..YOU DA MAN.

So, does the code state that I cannot use a banner?

[bdmarti]

Ladue V Gilleo (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1856.ZO.html) is a unanimous supreme court ruling that overturns a local ban on political signs and calls into question the constitutionality of any ordinance that bans signs on private property, and particularly any ordinance that singles out types signs while allowing others.

This case has been used successfully by gunssavelife.com and others to defend their rights to post sings with political messages on private property.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1856.ZO.html

[BLS]

Researching their city ordinances, i have so far found the following:

http://www.ci.hastings.mn.us/InsideCityHall/Ordinances/CodeTitle15/CodeTitle15.155.pdf


I am NOT a LAWYER, Or LEGAL Representitive. But from my reading of the entire section you currently ARE within the laws of your city.

FIGHT THIS!

How does that constitute being within the laws?
The election is way over 100 days away.

Not arguing with you...just curious if you can explain it??

[OptionsTrader]

The sons of liberty (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/sons.htm)would give the City of Hastings the finger and keep the banner up regardless of some city ordinance.

[10thAmendmentMan]

Ladue V Gilleo (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1856.ZO.html) is a unanimous supreme court ruling that overturns a local ban on political signs and calls into question the constitutionality of any ordinance that bans signs on property, and particularly andy ordinance that singles out types signs while allowing others.

This case has been used successfully by gunssavelife.com and others to defend their rights to post sings with political messages on private property.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1856.ZO.html

^
Political signs are a form of speech. You're exercising your right to use said speech freely. Any idiot can see that you'd win a case against the town. I say keep it up and sue your stinky town bankrupt if they try to fine you.

[american.swan]

Make a stand call the media. Whats the worst they can do to you? Fine? Court? Tazor Bro?

Exactly...it's like running around naked. The most they can do is give you a 300 dollar fine.

[kern802]

This is one example why people are so angry in this country.

1. You own the property but the govt tells you what you can and can't do with it.

2. Then they force you to pay them for the right to keep your property you paid for ie property taxes.

I say fight this.

Actually, the government owns all the land:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title

[itsnobody]

There are 100 pages of regulations in your city governing land usage alone (they don't have enough time on their hands). The PDF is here http://www.ci.hastings.mn.us/InsideCityHall/Ordinances/CodeTitle15/CodeTitle15.155.pdf

The definition for banner is:



The good news is that if you put it on a pole, then it magically turns into a flag:



Just be careful around those code enforcement officers, the BTK serial killer was one of the most dedicated code enforcement officers in Wichita, KS.
ROFL these laws are ridiculous, listen to this one:


No trespass/no hunting and similar signs not to exceed 2 square feet in size may be placed on private property;

[UtahApocalypse]

BLS, I was thinking the Mn Primary was sooner. I still think this is something you can, and should fight. Based on the Constitution alone, and some of the other arguements posted here.

[bbachtung]

This is a content-based restriction on your right to free speech; you need look no further than the fact that political signs are treated differently under the city ordinance than commercial (real estate) signs:



(4) Real estate, lease, and rental signs not more than 15 square feet for residentially zoned property and 32 square feet for non-residentially zoned property provided only 1 sign per street frontage upon which the property to be sold or leased abuts;


Contact the ACLU right away (just after you contact the news media).

My wife tells me to stop sounding like a lawyer (I am one, but not licensed in MN), so here goes:

You can't treat one type of speech differently than another type of speech (content-based regulation); it is especially true in this case where non-commercial speech is being treated worse than commercial speech.

[UtahApocalypse]

Here's the link to the folks in Florida:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=20415&highlight=aclu

In Peace,
Jen

Based on that article I would recommend calling the media, and ACLU. Refer them to that link as well since the background is already established. This one is already beat, the city just doesn't know it yet.

(sorry if im diving into this so much, but these are the EXACT things I am fighting for, we have given up too many rights and need a President who will help retore or freedoms and constitution)

[10thAmendmentMan]

Actually, the government owns all the land:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title

Someone's watched Michael Badnarik's Constitution lecture (and paid attention!).

[BLS]

This is a content-based restriction on your right to free speech; you need look no further than the fact that political signs are treated differently under the city ordinance than commercial (real estate) signs:



Contact the ACLU right away (just after you contact the news media).

My wife tells me to stop sounding like a lawyer (I am one, but not licensed in MN), so here goes:

You can't treat one type of speech differently than another type of speech (content-based regulation); it is especially true in this case where non-commercial speech is being treated worse than commercial speech.

Well, this article explains that my city has the same BS rules where Political signs are censored. He won in a landslide because of the inconsistencies.

" I
simply wasn't going to stand idly by while the City stepped on my
rights as a citizen," Bryan said. Orr researched the ordinance and
found that the regulation did not apply to commercial, real estate, or
any signs other than those of political nature. Certain that political
speech is protected by the First Amendment, Bryan called the ACLU's
Central Florida Regional Office and was delighted to hear what they had to say.

So...do I call her first thing in the morning?
Do I call my contact at the local Fox News Station before?
Or do I just ignore the letter altogether and wait for the sh1+ to hit the fan?

[ksuguy]

Calling the media might work. A lot more people would see the sign, that's for sure.

[RP08]

BLS, I LOVE your signs and just wish my yard had enough exposure for something like that to be readily seen.

But, since I don't know the ordinances of your area, I can't say whether they're right or not, but it sounds like complete BLSh!t to me. You should have the right to decorate your property as you wish.

Personally, I'm urked by pink flamingos, holy Mary, and mechanically-pumped water falls, and I don't see people running to city hall to implement ordinances against those in yards.

[BLS]

This is a content-based restriction on your right to free speech; you need look no further than the fact that political signs are treated differently under the city ordinance than commercial (real estate) signs:



Contact the ACLU right away (just after you contact the news media).

My wife tells me to stop sounding like a lawyer (I am one, but not licensed in MN), so here goes:

You can't treat one type of speech differently than another type of speech (content-based regulation); it is especially true in this case where non-commercial speech is being treated worse than commercial speech.


First off...I want to thank you for helping me with this.
I will not take anything you say as 'gospel' and I realize you are not giving me legal advice.

2nd....I'm curious what is the BEST method to get media attention to this.
Do I wait...and ignore it? Do I call her and refuse and then tell her I've contacted the ACLU?
Do I contact the media first, before I have a real 'fight' on my hands?

[UtahApocalypse]

Call the media, followed right by the ACLU.

[LibertyEagle]

Researching their city ordinances, i have so far found the following:

http://www.ci.hastings.mn.us/InsideCityHall/Ordinances/CodeTitle15/CodeTitle15.155.pdf


I am NOT a LAWYER, Or LEGAL Representitive. But from my reading of the entire section you currently ARE within the laws of your city.

FIGHT THIS!

How are you getting that? He lives in a residential district and these are not listed as being ok for banners.

[BLS]

OK...I've called and left a message with the ACLU.
If I don't hear anything by morning, I'll call them again around lunch time.

I'm going to fight this. All the support you guys have given me convinced me to bite the bullet.

[Joe Knows]

Just thougt you guys might like to see the letter that was sent today to our fair City of Cleremont. Once again the ACLU shows that it stands for EVERYONE's civil liberties. I say this because too often they get pegged as an evil left wing group. They are not. And I am proud and grateful for their assistance. Without them this country would be much the worse in their absence.

Below is the letter copied from a PDF file.



AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA
CENTRAL REGION OFFICE
231 East Colonial Drive, Suite 150
Orlando, Florida 32801-1228




August 29, 2007



VIA FACSIMILE

Betty McMinamen
Code Enforcement Officer
City of Clermont
P.O. Box 120219
Clermont, FL 34712-0219

Re: August 23, 2007 Letter to Bryan J. and Leilani J. Orr

Dear Ms. McMinamen:

This letter is written on behalf of Bryan J. and Leilani J. Orr regarding your
August 23, 2007 letter demanding that they immediately cease and desist the placement
of a political sign on their property, purportedly in violation of the City of Clermont’s
ordinance requiring a political sign permit and payment of a $50.00 refundable fee. We
believe you have misapplied the ordinance and, to the extent you would apply it to the
Orrs, that it is plainly unconstitutional.

First, City Code § 102-18 provides that “The candidate whose sign is erected . . .
shall deposit with the city clerk” the required fee. The Orrs are not candidates so, by the
terms of the ordinance itself, they cannot be required to pay a fee. Moreover, if by
enforcing § 102-18 against the Orrs you are taking the position that they are prohibited
from posting signs on their property unless the candidate named on their sign pays the
fee, we believe such a position violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment
to the Constitution.

The law is clear that the display of political signs constitutes pure speech that is
protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that “the First
Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a
campaign for political office.” Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central
Committee, 489 U.S. 214, 223 (1989). Because the City of Clermont’s code specifically
singles out political signs as a category, it is a content-based restriction that must be
supported by a compelling governmental interest. Further, the means chosen to effect
such interests must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective. See Boos v. Barry, 485
U.S. 312, 321 (1988).

PAGE 2

Letter to Ms. McMinamen
August 29, 2007
Page 2


The ACLU believes that the City’s restriction quite clearly cannot meet this
heavy, strict scrutiny burden. I call your attention to several cases from around the
country that have struck down various ordinances restricting the display of political signs:
Arlington County Republican Committee v. Arlington County, Virginia, 983 F.2d 587 (4th
Cir. 1993) (two sign limit unconstitutional even where the ordinance was content
neutral); Knoeffler v. Town of Mamakating, 87 F. Supp.2d 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
(restriction of political lawn signs violated First Amendment); Curry v. Prince George’s
County, Maryland, 33 F. Supp.2d 447 (D. Md. 1999) (durational limit with respect to
political signs unconstitutional); Savago v. Village of New Paltz, 214 F.Supp.2d 252
(N.D.N.Y. 2002) (Village’s sign ordinance unconstitutional). See also Rappa v. New
Castle County, 18 F.3d 1043 (3rd Cir. 1994) (invalidating state statute regulating
placement of signs).

The United States Court of Appeals decision in Beaulieu v. City of Alabaster, 454
F.3d 1219, 1233 (11th Cir. 2006) is particularly relevant. That case involved a city
ordinance that imposed bureaucratic requirements on political signs that did not apply to
other signs. The court struck the ordinance as unconstitutional, holding that “[i]n sum,
under the sign ordinance it is easier, cheaper, and faster for Beaulieu to post a real estate
sign than a campaign sign. Because political signs are subject to more regulatory burden
than real estate signs, the sign ordinance discriminates against political speech in favor of
commercial speech.” Applying the City of Clermont’s ordinances to require the Orrs to
obtain a permit or pay a fee to post a political sign, while those same ordinances allow
them to post a real estate sign with no permission or requirement is precisely what the
Eleventh Circuit found unconstitutional in Beauliu.

Please confirm in writing faxed to the above number no later than 5:00 p.m. this
Friday that you will not take the enforcement action against the Orrs described in your
August 23, 2007 letter, and that they may post their political sign without the need for a
permit or the payment of any fee. If we do not receive such confirmation we are prepared
to challenge the ordinance in federal court.

Please contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further.


Sincerely,



Glenn M. Katon


cc: Bryan J. and Leilani J. Orr
James K. Hitt, Director of Planning
Daniel Mantzaris, City Attorney

This was the letter sent out by the ACLU on behalf of Bryan Orr.

[UtahApocalypse]

How are you getting that? He lives in a residential district and these are not listed as being ok for banners.

It is the only place anywhere in the city ordinances I find anything on Signs.

[bbachtung]

Well, this article explains that my city has the same BS rules where Political signs are censored. He won in a landslide because of the inconsistencies.

" I
simply wasn't going to stand idly by while the City stepped on my
rights as a citizen," Bryan said. Orr researched the ordinance and
found that the regulation did not apply to commercial, real estate, or
any signs other than those of political nature. Certain that political
speech is protected by the First Amendment, Bryan called the ACLU's
Central Florida Regional Office and was delighted to hear what they had to say.

So...do I call her first thing in the morning?
Do I call my contact at the local Fox News Station before?
Or do I just ignore the letter altogether and wait for the sh1+ to hit the fan?

You don't call her first thing.

You first contact any of the three staff writers for the Hastings Star-Gazette:

http://www.hastingsstargazette.com/contact/index.cfm?&forumcomm_check_return

Then contact the local television news people, including:

Tom Hauser (of KSTP) -- he is apparently their "chief political reporter" and grew up in nearby Edina: http://kstp.com/article/stories/s241.shtml?cat=28

Pat Kessler (of WCCO) -- he is their politics and government guy (and used to work with Garrison Keillor): http://kstp.com/article/stories/s241.shtml?cat=28

KARE has a "tip line" for news tips: Tipline: (763) 593-1111

Good luck -- we're behind you.

Give them copies of the letter that you got from the city as well as a copy of the stories from Florida and the letter from the Florida ACLU. You need to give them all of the information that is necessary for them to do a story (most reporters, like most of people, like things that are pretty easy to do -- like stories that practically write / tell themselves).

[NewEnd]

And of course, once you start fighting, get a small security camera to catch the inevitable thug who takes it down.

[mkrfctr]

Didn't read all the comments, but it basically goes like this.

Typically political signage on private property is a well upheld first ammendment issue, local ordinances be damned. But you want to avoid having to get to the point of constitutionality, as that's way up the legal food chain.

But the ordinance might be poorly worded and not specify a difference between that and signage of a commercial nature in a residential area and that just needs to be explained to the city. Or perhaps it is specifically worded to prohbit banners but not signs, in which case, just use signs, don't make a big deal of it. You can ask for them to revisit the issue and change it but just switch to signs in the mean time.

Also realize that the people who work at city hall are not lawyers, they receive a complaint or notice, look at the statute, and send a notice. If you question their interpretation, or think that it imposes on your first amendment rights for political speech, then ask the city for a clarification from the City Attorney, that is their job to respond to such inquiries.

It could also just be that the fence and the banner is in an easement rather than on your property and if you moved it back you would be fine.

Again, consult the actual written ordinance, and ask for clarification from the city attorney if there is question or disagreement between you and city hall.

[BLS]

This was the letter sent out by the ACLU on behalf of Bryan Orr.

YOU ROCK!!!

[G-khan]

Researching their city ordinances, i have so far found the following:

http://www.ci.hastings.mn.us/InsideCityHall/Ordinances/CodeTitle15/CodeTitle15.155.pdf


I am NOT a LAWYER, Or LEGAL Representitive. But from my reading of the entire section you currently ARE within the laws of your city.

FIGHT THIS!


Great find and post - now he has some legs to stand on...

[jjschless]

Yes, tell them to fuck off politely. Then see if they would like a campaign Slim Jim. :)


This post is made of win.

[Perry]

I would look further into the law before you decide to contest it. Laws like this are not uncommon and i have always hated those signs & appreciated those laws. Now however I am a Ron Paul supporter and have a great desire to have these signs up. You're not the only one that has to deal with this.

[cjhowe]

With all due respect cities and municipalities do have jurisdiction on such zoning measures. By the regulations provided you may put your sign/banners back up on 10/28. Of course if you wish to make a stink for publicity sake, have at your civil disobedience. Be prepared to take responsibility for your actions. However for loophole's sake,


(12) Temporary holiday signs or displays relating noncommercial messages associated with national, state, or local holidays or festivals;

Tie pink ribbons around them and now they're associated to National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. He is the most popular OB/GYN after all.

[BLS]

You don't call her first thing.

You first contact any of the three staff writers for the Hastings Star-Gazette:

http://www.hastingsstargazette.com/contact/index.cfm?&forumcomm_check_return

Then contact the local television news people, including:

Tom Hauser (of KSTP) -- he is apparently their "chief political reporter" and grew up in nearby Edina: http://kstp.com/article/stories/s241.shtml?cat=28

Pat Kessler (of WCCO) -- he is their politics and government guy (and used to work with Garrison Keillor): http://kstp.com/article/stories/s241.shtml?cat=28

KARE has a "tip line" for news tips: Tipline: (763) 593-1111

Good luck -- we're behind you.

Give them copies of the letter that you got from the city as well as a copy of the stories from Florida and the letter from the Florida ACLU. You need to give them all of the information that is necessary for them to do a story (most reporters, like most of people, like things that are pretty easy to do -- like stories that practically write / tell themselves).

OK..I'm following you with the story info (such as the Florida letter, etc).
When I contact the media...what do I say? Why I ask is....wouldn't they just be like..."well, ok..good luck with that"? Should I say that I'm fighting it?

Sorry for sounding like a moron...I just don't want anything to come back to bite me.

[BLS]

With all due respect cities and municipalities do have jurisdiction on such zoning measures. By the regulations provided you may put your sign/banners back up on 10/28. Of course if you wish to make a stink for publicity sake, have at your civil disobedience. Be prepared to take responsibility for your actions. However for loophole's sake,



Tie pink ribbons around them and now they're associated to National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. He is the most popular OB/GYN after all.

Would that really work? (the pink ribbons)

You seem legally educated. How did you determine I could put the signs back up on 10/28?

[bbachtung]

I don't know about cjhowe, but I think that the letter from the ACLU and the case law contained therein indicate that while they may have "jurisdiction" that is irrelevant to whether the laws that are passed are constitutional.

Don't mix the message re: breast cancer.

[cjhowe]

Would that really work? (the pink ribbons)

You seem legally educated. How did you determine I could put the signs back up on 10/28?

IANAL, and I don't know if the loophole would work, but I would think putting pink ribbons around it would sufficiently associate it with "National Breast Cancer Awareness Month (October)" and that might be enough of a national holiday to qualify, since they don't define what a holiday is.

10/28 is 100 days from the February 5th Minnesota precinct caucus, yes?

[cjhowe]

I don't know about cjhowe, but I think that the letter from the ACLU and the case law contained therein indicate that while they may have "jurisdiction" that is irrelevant to whether the laws that are passed are constitutional.

Don't mix the message re: breast cancer.

Your city or municipality certainly has jurisdiction over unattended signage. Your neighbors certainly have a right to maintain property value through zoning ordinances. If you want to dig through 220 years of legal precedence in such matters, have at it. I think in the end, you come up a loser (after years of fighting). As far as mixing the message, unless BLS wants to spend his days fighting city hall, it's either mixed message or no message.

[bbachtung]

OK..I'm following you with the story info (such as the Florida letter, etc).
When I contact the media...what do I say? Why I ask is....wouldn't they just be like..."well, ok..good luck with that"? Should I say that I'm fighting it?

Sorry for sounding like a moron...I just don't want anything to come back to bite me.

Talk about fighting it . . . lead in with how you haven't been very interested in politics, then RP came along, and you have not only become interested but become active. Now big-old-mean city hall came along and rained on your parade. It is unconstitutional.

[bbachtung]

Your city or municipality certainly has jurisdiction over unattended signage. Your neighbors certainly have an right to maintain property value through zoning ordinances. If you want to dig through 220 years of legal precedence in such matters, have at it. I think in the end, you come up a loser (after years of fighting). As far as mixing the message, unless BLS wants to spend his days fighting city hall, it's either mixed message or no message.

I agree that since he resides in the city that the city has "jurisdiction" over his property. Jurisdiction is not the issue. If the city passed a law stating, "It shall be a misdemeanor to put up any sign for a church outside of said church," the law would be within the city's jurisdiction, but it wouldn't be constitutional.

As a believer in liberty and property rights, I don't think that my neighbors have the right to -- at gunpoint -- decide what I can advocate on my property. Property values be damned.

[ronpaulhawaii]

http://hawaii.gov/ag/main/publications/opinions/1993_1999/96-04.pdf (http://hawaii.gov/ag/main/publications/opinions/1993_1999/96-04.pdf)




Although the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet decided whether laws which impose durational limitations on political signs but not on other signs violate the First Amendment, it held an ordinance unconstitutional which purported to completely prohibit political yard signs. City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 114 S.Ct. 2038, 129 L. Ed. 2d 36 (1994). In City of Ladue the Court referred to the posting of residential signs as "a venerable means of communication that is both unique and important," and stated that such signs "play an important part in political campaigns." Id. at ____, 114 S. Ct. at 2045, 129 L. Ed. 2d at 47.


A city ordinance that limited the posting of outdoor political signs publicizing ballot propositions or promoting candidates for public office was held unconstitutional in City of Antioch v. Candidates' Outdoor Graphic Service, 557 F. Supp. 52 (N.D. Cal. 1982). The ordinance limited such signs to a period of sixty days prior to the election to which they related. The court rejected the argument that the ordinance was a "time, place, and manner" regulation, and found that it was presumptively unconstitutional.


Even before City of Ladue, courts invalidated laws that purported to regulate political signs but which did so in ways that were not narrowly tailored to further the asserted government interests in aesthetics and traffic safety. E.g., Arlington County Republican Comm. v. Arlington County, 983 F.2d 587, 594 (4th Cir. 1993) (two-sign limit on political signs); Verrilli v. City of Concord, 548 F.2d 262 (9th Cir. 1977) (regulation of size, number, and location of signs, and requirement of cash bond to post campaign signs except at residence).


Therefore, we believe that section 445-112(11) will be held by a court to be unconstitutional under both the United States and Hawaii constitutions and that the statute is unenforceable in a court of law



`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


HTH

[UtahApocalypse]

Your city or municipality certainly has jurisdiction over unattended signage. Your neighbors certainly have a right to maintain property value through zoning ordinances. If you want to dig through 220 years of legal precedence in such matters, have at it. I think in the end, you come up a loser (after years of fighting). As far as mixing the message, unless BLS wants to spend his days fighting city hall, it's either mixed message or no message.

I disagree. The ACLU letter sent in the Florida case cietd many case references that back this. Some of which were on a Federal and Supreme Court level.

Honestly, I don't know if any of us are versed enough in the local laws, or can give correct advise. I would call the ACLU, they have stood up for this exact thing in the past and know what they are doing.

[bbachtung]

Thanks, RonPaulHawaii; hopefully seeing the actual appellate opinions' language will convince the doubters that the Constitution does apply despite "jurisdiction."

[orenbus]

Wow, you should contact the guy who got the media
attention down in Florida and ask what steps he
took.

This is like a gold mine in terms of publicity it could
generate.

I'm glad your going to fight this!

[Lord Xar]

they are telling you WHAT you can and cannot display in terms of signage on your OWN property.... hahahhah... wow. I'd fight it.. what will happen IF you don't remove it, and find out "what" ordinance they are referring to. Might just be scare tactics.

[Taco John]

Fight it and call the media to tell them about your fight. Use it as an opportunity!

[sylvania]

I was thinking it was a gold mine, too. If you do decide to fight this (and I personally hope you do), then be prepared for the question, 'Why do you support Ron Paul?" and do us proud.

[bbachtung]

He's the Thomas Jefferson of our day, and the only one who can beat Hillary Clinton.

[cjhowe]

I disagree. The ACLU letter sent in the Florida case cietd many case references that back this. Some of which were on a Federal and Supreme Court level.

Honestly, I don't know if any of us are versed enough in the local laws, or can give correct advise. I would call the ACLU, they have stood up for this exact thing in the past and know what they are doing.

I stand corrected
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Ladue_v_Gilleo

This is only a city issue and not a Home Owner's Association issue, right?

[mkrfctr]

I know you guys are looking to push this to get some media attention, but really if you just want to keep the signs up, call city hall, tell them its a political sign and should be exempt, if they say no, then ask to see the ordinance, if the ordinance is unclear, ask for a clarification from the city attorney, if the ordinance includes political signage, send something to the city attorney stating that you think by the constitution of the US, or MN that it should be exempt as 1st amendment protected speech, along with some of that stuff from the ACLU/Florida case. Most likely the city will back down and not make an issue of it...

[bbachtung]

I stand corrected
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Ladue_v_Gilleo

This is only a city issue and not a Home Owner's Association issue, right?

Right, cjhowe.

I agree that when you enter into an agreement with an HOA (bad idea) you are (as you should be) screwed.

[BLS]

I stand corrected
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Ladue_v_Gilleo

This is only a city issue and not a Home Owner's Association issue, right?

It's good, I think, to have all viewpoints considered. I do, in fact, appreciate you questioning my initial thoughts of fighting it.

I will admit, however that I'm glad you concur with the others here as I do value your opinion.

I will contact the media tomorrow, call the ACLU and then call the City Hall.

[BLS]

I stand corrected
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Ladue_v_Gilleo

This is only a city issue and not a Home Owner's Association issue, right?

No, no home owner's association issue, just city related.

[BLS]

Wow, you should contact the guy who got the media
attention down in Florida and ask what steps he
took.

This is like a gold mine in terms of publicity it could
generate.

I'm glad your going to fight this!

ACtually I already emailed him for advice. Great minds I guess. :D

I'm going to fight it!!

[cjhowe]

No, no home owner's association issue, just city related.

Fight on then ! :) Start a chip-in if necessary.

[BLS]

Fight on then ! :) Start a chip-in if necessary.

thanks man!

[MsDoodahs]

Don't know if this might be a good idea or not, but is there any way to find out if Kari Baker Associate PLANNER (hurl) has donated to an opposing candidate's campaign?

Also, since she is the associate planner, what about her superiors - have they or are any of them actively involved in the campaigns of opposing candidates?

Additional ammo never hurts...

[bbachtung]

Don't know if this might be a good idea or not, but is there any way to find out if Kari Baker Associate PLANNER (hurl) has donated to an opposing candidate's campaign?

Also, since she is the associate planner, what about her superiors - have they or are any of them actively involved in the campaigns of opposing candidates?

Additional ammo never hurts...

John Hinzman, Planning Director
Kari Barker, Planning Associate
Justin Fortney , Planning Associate

I'm running them through opensecrets.org:

The only Hastings, MN residents to contribute enough (in Q1 and Q2) to be listed have been one for Giuliani and one for Edwards. Neither is a name on the list.

[orenbus]

What kind of notice did they give you? I mean how much time did
they give you after they notified you that the sign had to be taken down? Also how long was the sign up for before you got the notice?

Thinking of legal arguments that could be made...

Also is that your fence or is that some sort of fence shared by you and your neighbors?

[BLS]

What kind of notice did they give you? I mean how much time did
they give you after they notified you that the sign had to be taken down? Also how long was the sign up for before you got the notice?

Thinking of legal arguments that could be made...

Also is that your fence or is that some sort of fence shared by you and your neighbors?

The envelope is post marked 10/1, so from time of mailing to time to remove is 7 days.

It is my fence. I do not share it with anyone. Matter of fact, there is grass in front of that fence between the fence and the sidewalk, and the city maintains that I am responsible for mowing that grass. If I gotta mow that grass it must be mine...and if the grass is mine, the fence must be mine too.

[jkaufmann]

I work for a law firm, but am not an attorney. If you really choose to fight this, consulting an attorney first, rather quickly since you have only 7 days to remove, would be a smart thing to do.

To cover costs, I pledge 100$. Please seriously consider consulting an attorney before making your next move.

Any other pledges of money?

[BLS]

I work for a law firm, but am not an attorney. If you really choose to fight this, consulting an attorney first, rather quickly since you have only 7 days to remove, would be a smart thing to do.

To cover costs, I pledge 100$. Please seriously consider consulting an attorney before making your next move.

Any other pledges of money?

Thank you very much for your pledge.
I am planning on contacting the ACLU tomorrow to see if they will take my case.

[cjhowe]

The envelope is post marked 10/1, so from time of mailing to time to remove is 7 days.

It is my fence. I do not share it with anyone. Matter of fact, there is grass in front of that fence between the fence and the sidewalk, and the city maintains that I am responsible for mowing that grass. If I gotta mow that grass it must be mine...and if the grass is mine, the fence must be mine too.

totally off topic but...

Different states may call it different terms, some call it "home-rule" and "non home-rule" municipalities. Home-rule municipalities may require homeowners through properly enacted ordinances to maintain publicly owned land that abuts their property. The only thing that defines the boundaries of your property should be the property deed that is filed with the city or county.

[Grandson of Liberty]

I'm not a lawyer, but I didn't see anyone else address this question, so I thought I throw out the idea that taping the conversation is a bad idea if you don't inform the other person you are doing so. You might even have to ask their permission. I don't know for sure, I could be wrong. It happened once before. :p

[BLS]

I'm not a lawyer, but I didn't see anyone else address this question, so I thought I throw out the idea that taping the conversation is a bad idea if you don't inform the other person you are doing so. You might even have to ask their permission. I don't know for sure, I could be wrong. It happened once before. :p

I'm not sure what the law is. I guess if I did it, I would notify her that I'll be recording the conversation.

[BLS]

totally off topic but...

Different states may call it different terms, some call it "home-rule" and "non home-rule" municipalities. Home-rule municipalities may require homeowners through properly enacted ordinances to maintain publicly owned land that abuts their property. The only thing that defines the boundaries of your property should be the property deed that is filed with the city or county.

I thought about that. The grass in front of the fence may NOT be my property, but the fence most assuredly is.

[cjhowe]

I thought about that. The grass in front of the fence may NOT be my property, but the fence most assuredly is.

Then the more important question is (and it's on topic) does your fence sit on your property? If not...you may win the fight to put up a sign on your property...but then be told to take your fence down off of public property.

[steph3n]

what do you do when this happens? put up more banners!

[orenbus]

yea really worst case scenario, you may have to move
the fence back a foot or two, then boom the whole
thing can be covered in banners :D

[BLS]

Then the more important question is (and it's on topic) does your fence sit on your property? If not...you may win the fight to put up a sign on your property...but then be told to take your fence down off of public property.

Good point. I don't konw for sure to be honest with you.
I haven't seen the property lines.

[Flirple]

I would first make sure that the fence is indeed your property and not the city's. You seem sure of this but I would double check.

I don't see how this is a first amendment issue. The first amendment says "congress shall make no law..." It doesn't say anything about a state or a city making a law abridging freedom of speech. That would be up to your state constitution as I see it. This is local tyranny not federal.

But regardless of if it is constitutional, it is plain wrong on principle. And if it is indeed your fence and not the city's then it doesn't matter even if you had a city ordinance that said what you were doing was illegal. That doesn't mean that it is a morally justified law. And any such law telling you what you can do with your property should be willfully ignored as a way to raise awareness for the need to remove that law from the books. Call the media and milk this for all the free publicity possible. The "Ron Paul Revolution" is a bigger opportunity than just electing one guy President. It is an opportunity to raise awareness and fight back tyranny at every level along the way.

[BLS]

bump for anyone who hasn't seen this yet.

[ValidusCustodiae]

I'd put up about 5 more signs and one of them which says...

"Come and take them."

[trispear]

I don't see how this is a first amendment issue. The first amendment says "congress shall make no law..." It doesn't say anything about a state or a city making a law abridging freedom of speech. That would be up to your state constitution as I see it. This is local tyranny not federal.Look up the 14th amendment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It prevents states from violating your Constitutional Rights. Otherwise all of them would have been trampled on long ago without consequences by local and state governments.

[Razmear]

How does that constitute being within the laws?
The election is way over 100 days away.

Not arguing with you...just curious if you can explain it??

The Primary is 99 days away, so he's legal.

eb

Edit: My bad, thought he was in Michigan, not Minnesota.
Still say leave em up, though. Good publicity for property rights.

[BLS]

The Primary is 99 days away, so he's legal.

eb

Not the Minnesota Primary though.

[lasenorita]

I'm not sure what the law is. I guess if I did it, I would notify her that I'll be recording the conversation.

Since you're both located in Minnesota, it looks like all you need to record conversations is one party consent (yours). Visit RCFP (http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/minnesota.html) for details. United States Telephone Recording Laws (http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm) is also a good read for those interested.

[Chester Copperpot]

tell them they can have the banners when they pry it out of your cold dead fingers

[Thunderbolt]

I live in a community that has rules and no one is allowed to put up any political banners. It is my home, but I do not have the right to do whatever I want to on my property.

Do not get BLS all worked up over this. This may be against an ordinance or something. Perhaps you can put the sign on high sticks inside your yard, or across your garage door?

Find out what the exact rules are and then see if there are any loopholes. Ask why the businesses can put up signs.

This is not unusual and we don't win by getting ourselves tickets or thrown in jail.

Just see what is legal and allowed and see if you can work with that. Or can you put the banner on your car and park your car on the street?

Start of nice and see what you can work out. There are always loopholes.

[foofighter20x]

Thanks, RonPaulHawaii; hopefully seeing the actual appellate opinions' language will convince the doubters that the Constitution does apply despite "jurisdiction."

There's a question over constitutional jurisdiction?

Who are these numbskulls? I mean, really, come on! I distinctly remember the Constitution saying it's the supreme law of the land...

How do they really expect to trump that?? :rolleyes:

[rodent]

Actually, the government owns all the land:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title

This makes me so sad. The only way I can truly be free is if I have a revolution and make my own country with guns or a lot of money.

[sunny]

Yes, this is my home.

you may conider that your home but you do NOT own the property.
if you are in the system and purchase property in that manner you do NOT own it - it is owned by the state.
the only way to outright OWN your property is with an allodial "title"

there is harcly anyone in the country who OWNS their home.

[Ninja Homer]

Letter from my City Hall today.

Dear Current Resident,

The City of Hastings (MN) recently noticed a banner was placed on the fence behind the home at (address). Please note, the City Of Hastings Sign Ordinance does not allow banners in the residential district.

Therefore, the banner must be removed by October 8th, 2007.

Please contact me with any questions at 651-480-2377.

Sincerely,

Kari Barker
Associate Planner

Do I remove it....or do I fight it?

Here's why I ask.

Just down the street is our local highschool football stadium.
And there are a TON of banners on there from local businesses, etc.
That Stadium is right in the middle of a residential area.

Here's photos of my signs. :D

The 3rd image shows a school board candidate, who stopped by yesterday to ask if they could put a sign up there. I said sure, if you donate $5 to Ron Paul's campaign. He did, so I let him. Think they'll ask me to take them down?

I am going to call her tomorrow....should I record my conversation?

This is the ordinance they're referring to:

(11) Temporary ribbons, banners, pennants, and similar devices are allowed in commercial, industrial, and public institution districts. The devices shall be removed if they become torn, discolored, or in any way damaged to modify their original appearance. Businesses and/or property owners utilizing these temporary devices that include advertising and/or a message shall be allowed only a total of 90 days during any 12-month period. Only 1 device shall be used at a time, and the maximum size of the device shall be equal to or less than the monument sign standards for the district in which the site is located, or in the case of the East 2nd Street Historic District or Downtown Core District, equal or less than the wall sign standards;

The high school football stadium is probably zoned as a public institution, so they can have banners. It sounds like they are only arguing that you can't have banners, since they didn't say anything about the other political sign.

Reasons for fighting it would include fighting for your Constitutional rights just on general principle, or getting media attention for Ron Paul.

If you just want to work within their stupid ordinances, turn the banners into signs. Get some cheap plywood or fiberboard, cut it to size, and mount the banner to it with some double-sided tape. Then you can tell them you took the banners down and put signs up.

Their election sign ordinance:

(3) Election/campaign signs on private property provided the signs are posted no sooner than 100 days before a city, school, county, state, or federal election and removed within 10 days following an election. No election signs shall be affixed to utility poles;
Notice it says that it has to be within 100 days before an election, but it doesn't specify that the campaign sign has to be for that particular election. So if there's a city, school, county, or state election in the next 100 days you're good. Of course, it's assumed that they are talking about a campaign sign being within 100 days of that particular election, but if they are going to nitpick about putting a sign up on your own damn property, nitpick back.

In MN, you can record a conversation as long as you are in on the conversation.

Good luck!

[BillyDkid]

How on earth is this not a freedom of speech/first amendment issue? If this is not an infringement of your Constitutional rights I have no idea what is. This, my friend, is where the rubber hits the road.

[Nefertiti]

It's more than 100 days from the Minnesota primary though, so it is not within the regulations.

[MsDoodahs]

BLS, it's up to you how you respond to this.

I wanted to let you know that regardless of what you decide, I'm with ya.

:)

[deborak]

I haven't read all the other comments, but if it was me, I'd just get creative and see how many more letters I could generate from City Hall with other options: how about a scarecrow in a Ron Paul t-shirt standing in your yard? Ron Paul balloons tied to the fence? whirligigs and windsocks? etc. Read the ordinance and figure out exactly what contingency they haven't thought of and go that route.

Keep those bureaucrats pushing paper so they aren't doing more detrimental things to your community. :p

[BillyDkid]

It's more than 100 days from the Minnesota primary though, so it is not within the regulations.I wonder, can you be ticketed for talking about Ron Paul in public? I'm sorry, I don't care what the regulations are - it's an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech.

[allyinoh]

I know you guys are looking to push this to get some media attention, but really if you just want to keep the signs up, call city hall, tell them its a political sign and should be exempt, if they say no, then ask to see the ordinance, if the ordinance is unclear, ask for a clarification from the city attorney, if the ordinance includes political signage, send something to the city attorney stating that you think by the constitution of the US, or MN that it should be exempt as 1st amendment protected speech, along with some of that stuff from the ACLU/Florida case. Most likely the city will back down and not make an issue of it...

I don't really think the one and only reason he is pushing it is to get media attention. Why would you even suggest that? Just curious.

[ItsTime]

Replace it with a banner of the constitution!

[MsDoodahs]

Maybe a banner with the First Amendment printed out in full alongside it?

[Ninja Homer]

They didn't say that he needed to take the banner down because it was for a campaign, they said it needed to be taken down because it is a banner, and they have an ordinance against banners in residential areas.

[BLS]

I'm fighting this all day long. I have a dentists appointment and then I'm calling the ACLU and the local media.

[Craig_R]

I didnt read every post in this thread, however. If you hold color of law on the property I suggest you apply for a land patent. once you have secured ownership of the land on which the sign is placed they have NO legal standing on any "ordinance". Plus, if they decide to tresspass onto your property you can sue the crap out of them.

just to top it off I'd erect hundreds of Ron Paul banners on my property just to piss them off ;)

[ManicMondayMomma]

There was a supreme court ruling that religious and political signs are exempt from these kinds of regulations. I don't know the specifics, but the guys at gunssavelife.com have tackled these issues with their signs, and they could give you the info or at least some direction. good luck!

[BLS]

Thanks for the input guys/gals!

I will keep you posted.

[kylejack]

I'm fighting this all day long. I have a dentists appointment and then I'm calling the ACLU and the local media.

I have half a mind to call the lady myself and ask her why she's enforcing an ordinance that violates the First Amendment. The only time this kind of stuff is valid is when the person agreed to a home-owner's association agreement when they bought the house.

[UtahApocalypse]

Any update on this yet today?

[BLS]

Any update on this yet today?

Yeah, I sent out a mass media email last night. Got one phone call from the local radio station. They said they called the City and got clarity of the issue and gave me the number of the city manager to call.

I was like....that's awfully nice...but that's not why I emailed....but I let it go.

Then the city called me and I mentioned it was unconstitutional to 'censor' Political signs because of the time restrictions. She was pretty blown away and suggested she would have the city manager call me.

He called and we spoke (all was very cordial and calm).
I told him my position, and cited a few sources of ACLU issues and the supreme court ruling that all signs must be mandated in a similar fashion.

He agreed that the code interpretation was NOT the issue, but more the legality.
He said he was going to discuss with the City Attorney and get back to me.

I asked..if I don't take it down today, will I be fined. She said no, we'd only fine you if you didn't respond after 8 or so attempts to contact me.

So, for now...I don't know much...but the City Manager was very understanding and willing to look into it deeper.

[ItsTime]

AKA you just got the run around. This is how they handle it when they want you to do something. They make it look like they "tried" everything but there is nothing you can do so take it down.

:rolleyes:


Yeah, I sent out a mass media email last night. Got one phone call from the local radio station. They said they called the City and got clarity of the issue and gave me the number of the city manager to call.

I was like....that's awfully nice...but that's not why I emailed....but I let it go.

Then the city called me and I mentioned it was unconstitutional to 'censor' Political signs because of the time restrictions. She was pretty blown away and suggested she would have the city manager call me.

He called and we spoke (all was very cordial and calm).
I told him my position, and cited a few sources of ACLU issues and the supreme court ruling that all signs must be mandated in a similar fashion.

He agreed that the code interpretation was NOT the issue, but more the legality.
He said he was going to discuss with the City Attorney and get back to me.

I asked..if I don't take it down today, will I be fined. She said no, we'd only fine you if you didn't respond after 8 or so attempts to contact me.

So, for now...I don't know much...but the City Manager was very understanding and willing to look into it deeper.

[kylejack]

Tell them you contacted the Constitution and the Constitution gave you the go-ahead and that the sign won't be coming down. Then tell them if they have a problem, they'll have to take it up with the Constitution.

[UtahApocalypse]

You should still call the ACLU or a Lawyer. Don't discuss anything without representation.

[Flirple]

I wrote:


Originally Posted by Flirple
I don't see how this is a first amendment issue. The first amendment says "congress shall make no law..." It doesn't say anything about a state or a city making a law abridging freedom of speech. That would be up to your state constitution as I see it. This is local tyranny not federal.


And you replied:

Look up the 14th amendment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It prevents states from violating your Constitutional Rights. Otherwise all of them would have been trampled on long ago without consequences by local and state governments.

Hi trispear, I think that is my point. The first amendment doesn't guarantee you freedom of speech, religion, etc. The first amendment forbids the federal government from making laws abridging such freedoms. This is not a first amendment issue because we are talking about state or city laws, not federal laws. I really think people severely misunderstand the 1st amendment.

I am certainly no constitutional scholar but the only way I can see this having anything to do with the constitution is maybe you could make a 9th amendment argument? I don't see how the 14th amendment applies here either. Again, I am no constitutional scholar so someone please tell me where I am mistaken about this.

[UtahApocalypse]

The 14th Amendment basically limits States and Local laws to anything not protected within the constitution. If the constitution allows it a state cannot restrict it. At least this has always been my interpretation.

[Ninja Homer]

Bump for BLS:
http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=24378


Well, the city attorney called me.
they said they believe the code is within the US Consitution and they demand I take it down.

I told them to SHOVE IT.

I told them I would send them cases where they cannot violate common neutrality without censorship.

I need help sending him an email filled with articles and US Supreme Court rulings on this.

[jonahtrainer]

I wrote:


And you replied:


Hi trispear, I think that is my point. The first amendment doesn't guarantee you freedom of speech, religion, etc. The first amendment forbids the federal government from making laws abridging such freedoms. This is not a first amendment issue because we are talking about state or city laws, not federal laws. I really think people severely misunderstand the 1st amendment.

I am certainly no constitutional scholar but the only way I can see this having anything to do with the constitution is maybe you could make a 9th amendment argument? I don't see how the 14th amendment applies here either. Again, I am no constitutional scholar so someone please tell me where I am mistaken about this.

The 14th Amendment Due Process Clause incorporates many, but not all, of Bill of Rights to be applicable to the States.

There was a thread around here (I'll look around for it) about the sign in Florida. Political signs are extremely protected by the USSC. The ACLU has won a couple recent cases on the issue.

Found it. (http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=2946) That ought to scare them off.

[bbachtung]

Here's my proposed letter (sent to BLS already):

*NOT LEGAL ADVICE*



October 11, 2007

YOUR NAME HERE
YOUR STREET ADDRESS HERE
YOUR CITY, STATE & ZIP CODE HERE

Kari Barker
Associate Planner
City of Hastings
101 4th Street East
Hastings, MN 55033

To Whom It May Concern:

I was recently given a notice that I may not display a non-commercial sign on my own property because doing so violated a non-specified section of the City of Hastings’ Code. I believe that I have located the applicable code section on my own, and believe that the code – both facially and as applied against me – violates both the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied against state and local governments via the 14th Amendment) and Article I, § 3 of the Minnesota Constitution (“The liberty of the press shall forever remain inviolate, and all persons may freely speak, write and publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right.”).

The following is the relevant language of the Hastings Code § 155.08(C) (governing signs that do not require permits):


(C) Signs permitted without a permit.

***

(3) Election/campaign signs on private property provided the signs are posted no sooner than 100 days before a city, school, county, state, or federal election and removed within 10 days following an election. No election signs shall be affixed to utility poles;

(4) Real estate, lease, and rental signs not more than 15 square feet for residentially zoned property and 32 square feet for non-residentially zoned property provided only 1 sign per street frontage upon which the property to be sold or leased abuts[.]

Could you please explain to me how § 155.08, which provides greater rights for commercial speech (real estate signs) than political speech, is distinguishable from similar ordinances held unconstitutional in the following cases?

In Whitton v. City of Gladstone, Mo., 54 F. 3d 1400 (8th Cir. 1995), the 8th Circuit addressed an ordinance that restricted the display of political campaign signs on private property to no earlier than 30 days before an election and no later than 7 days after an election. Other types of signs were allowed to remain on display without such temporal restrictions. The Court held that the ordinance violated the 1st Amendment because it was not “content neutral” and could not, therefore, survive the “strict scrutiny” standard required for such a content-based restriction.

In Goward v. City of Minneapolis, 456 N.W. 2d 460 (1990), the Minnesota Court of Appeals struck down a city ordinance that allowed the display of “for sale” and “for rent” signs on private property while placing different restrictions on non-commercial opinion signs. The Court based its decision on its finding that the regulations were not “content neutral” time, place, and manner restrictions, and were, therefore, invalid under the 1st Amendment.

Please provide written confirmation, by 5 p.m. on October 12, 2007, that you will not take any enforcement action against me, and that my sign may remain on display or I will be forced to seek relief in federal court.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME HERE



cc: John Hinzman, Planning Director
Dave Osberg, City Administrator
Shawn Moynihan, City Attorney

[Wilkero]

Good letter -- follows the same structure as a letter by an attorney that was posted in the other thread and citing to MN App. Ct. was a nice touch. For the federal case, is MN in the 8th Circuit? I don't know, so I'm curious. If so, kudos.

It had to take quite some time to do this research, so please know that your efforts are appreciated (even though I'm not the one experiencing the problem).

[bbachtung]

Good letter -- follows the same structure as a letter by an attorney that was posted in the other thread and citing to MN App. Ct. was a nice touch. For the federal case, is MN in the 8th Circuit? I don't know, so I'm curious. If so, kudos.

It had to take quite some time to do this research, so please know that your efforts are appreciated (even though I'm not the one experiencing the problem).

I cited the 8th Circuit case specifically because Minnesota is in the 8th Circuit; good observation on your part.

I appreciate the thanks, but I do this for the man (not to be confused with the Man) -- RP -- and because I like to stick it to the Man (not to be confused with the man).

[Shink]

I'm fighting this all day long. I have a dentists appointment and then I'm calling the ACLU and the local media.

BLS, I just had to throw my hat in the ring to commend you for maintaining the warrior's spirit and FIGHTING this tyranny. SDMF FOREVER