PDA

View Full Version : Resident fights for his right to display campaign sign - Take THAT you FASCISTS!!




BLS
10-25-2007, 09:57 AM
FREEDOM!!! (http://www.hastingsstargazette.com/articles/index.cfm?id=16216&section=homepage&CFID=136149&CFTOKEN=47869026&jsessionid=8830625a18f592553363)

:D:D:D:D:D:D

Resident fights for his right to display campaign sign

Keith Grauman (kgrauman@hastingsstargazette.com) The Hastings Star-Gazette
Published Thursday, October 25, 2007


Hastings resident Chris Chandler never considered himself a “political person,” that is, until he discovered Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
“What he said was different than everyone else,” Chandler said. “The way he talks made so much sense.”

When Chandler first discovered Paul, who is also a congressman from Texas’ 14th district, he spent the entire day on the internet reading about him and watching debates Paul participated in. Initially it was Paul’s stance on the war in Iraq, which is essentially “get out now,” that attracted Chandler. http://www.hastingsstargazette.com/gfx/photos/stories/signs.10-25.jpg (http://www.hastingsstargazette.com/articles/includes/full_photo.cfm?id=1676)
Chris Chandler stands in front of the sign he put up on his fence in August. When the City of Hastings told him he had to take the sign down because it violated the city’s sign ordinance, it didn’t seem right to Chandler. After reviewing the ordinance, the city decided to re-examine its sign code and will be pursuing a change over the next two months. RELATED CONTENT

http://www.hastingsstargazette.com/gfx/icons/chat.gifAdd a comment (http://www.hastingsstargazette.com/articles/index.cfm?id=16216&page=comments) http://www.hastingsstargazette.com/gfx/icons/site_doc.gifKeith Grauman Archive (http://www.hastingsstargazette.com/reporters/index.cfm?page=articles&reporter_id=15)
“For the first time in my life – I’m 36 – I’m seeing an honest politician,” Chandler said.
In early August, Chandler drove to Iowa to volunteer with the Ron Paul campaign during the Iowa straw poll. When he was there he purchased a banner that read “Ron Paul – Hope for America – Be a part of it,” and upon his return to Hastings, he put it up on the fence that surrounds his backyard on the corner of Highway 55 and Maple Street.
That’s when the fun began.
The city informed Chandler in a letter dated Oct. 1 that the banner was in violation of a city ordinance that prohibits banners in residential districts. The letter also directed Chandler to take it down by Oct. 8.
A few days later, after calling the city to inquire about the ordinance they claimed he was violating, Chandler received a letter stating it was a provision in the city’s sign code that prohibits campaign signs from going up more than 100 days before an election.
That didn’t seem right to Chandler, so he made up his mind to do something about it. He never questioned that he was in violation of the law, but the law itself struck Chandler as unconstitutional.
“How far am I willing to go?” Chandler asked. “As far as it takes to have the code changed in town.”
Admittedly, prior to this situation, Chandler didn’t know much about civil liberties, but it didn’t take long for him to read up on the subject. Ron Paul is a huge advocate of protecting civil liberties, Chandler said, which further inspired him to challenge the legality of the 100-day provision in the Hastings sign code.
“People are so used to being told what to do, they don’t know their civil liberties are being violated,” Chandler said.
He found two decisions from courts in Minnesota that dealt with similar issues, in which censorship of political signs was struck down because the laws violated the “content neutral” provision of free speech covered by the First Amendment.
Essentially “content neutral” means there can’t be restrictions on certain types of speech but not others. Campaign signs are considered political speech, while things like real estate “for sale” signs are considered commercial speech.
On Oct. 12, Chandler sent that information in an e-mail to Planning Director John Hinzman, who responded the next day by saying he would forward the information to City Attorney Dan Fluegel and that the city was standing by its sign code and asked him again to remove the banner.
Later that day Chandler received a second e-mail from Hinzman that said the city would be reviewing the ordinance and that it wouldn’t pursue any enforcement action against him.
Four days later, on Oct. 17, Chandler’s persistence paid off when the city informed him it would begin looking into changing the 100-day provision in the city’s sign code.
“I was a bit surprised,” he said. “I wasn’t sure they’d do it. I thought maybe they’d just leave me alone and not change it.”
Hastings City Attorney Dan Fluegel said the original ordinance was based on a model many cities in Minnesota use. The cities of Apple Valley and Rosemount both have 100-day provisions in their political sign laws.
Fluegel said upon close consideration of the ordinance, a change is warranted.
“Posting a sign is one form of speech and if an ordinance restricts some types of speech and not others, like commercial speech, then it’s subject to very high standards of scrutiny.”
He said cities are well within their rights to limit some things when it comes to political signs, like prohibiting them from being placed in a road or utility right-of-way or specifying what materials signs can be made of. What’s likely to be changed in the Hastings code is the elimination of any time restrictions on noncommercial signs.
A Minnesota law says “all noncommercial signs of any size may be posted in any number from August 1 in a state general election year until 10 days following the state general election.”
Fluegel said the Minnesota law will be applied in general election years, but in other years, the city’s sign code will be used.
In order to change the city code, a formal process must occur in which public hearings are held and City Council approves the change.
In the Oct. 17 letter to Chandler, Hinzman said the city would begin working on the revision and would have a draft ready for the Planning Commission to review in November or December.
Since protecting civil liberties is something Ron Paul takes very seriously, Chandler thinks Paul would be happy to see what he went through to fight for his rights in posting a campaign sign on his property.
“He’d think it’s fantastic. Chandler said. “I knew my rights and stood up for them.”

DaronWestbrooke
10-25-2007, 10:03 AM
Que?

Brinck Slattery
10-25-2007, 10:04 AM
haha the word "freedom" is a link. I thought you were just putting a general "Eat it, sucka!" out there to any fascists that might be around.

mavtek
10-25-2007, 10:06 AM
Link to a login for a newspaper forum....

Dave Wood
10-25-2007, 10:07 AM
http://www.hastingsstargazette.com/news/

I think this may work better as the link. If this doesnt work just go the the old link and on the left click local news. Its worth it!


WAY TO GO MAN!! Fight the good fight. You might end up with a lot of publicity from this so prepare yourself. Good time to decide if you want to run for office or not.........

BLS
10-25-2007, 10:08 AM
Link is Fixed....my bad.

mavtek
10-25-2007, 10:08 AM
You may want to just post the text of the article as all I'm getting is a login.

specsaregood
10-25-2007, 10:09 AM
Hastings resident Chris Chandler never considered himself a “political person,” that is, until he discovered Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

“What he said was different than everyone else,” Chandler said. “The way he talks made so much sense.”

When Chandler first discovered Paul, who is also a congressman from Texas’ 14th district, he spent the entire day on the internet reading about him and watching debates Paul participated in. Initially it was Paul’s stance on the war in Iraq, which is essentially “get out now,” that attracted Chandler.



Chris Chandler stands in front of the sign he put up on his fence in August. When the City of Hastings told him he had to take the sign down because it violated the city’s sign ordinance, it didn’t seem right to Chandler. After reviewing the ordinance, the city decided to re-examine its sign code and will be pursuing a change over the next two months.
RELATED CONTENT
Add a comment
Keith Grauman Archive
“For the first time in my life – I’m 36 – I’m seeing an honest politician,” Chandler said.

In early August, Chandler drove to Iowa to volunteer with the Ron Paul campaign during the Iowa straw poll. When he was there he purchased a banner that read “Ron Paul – Hope for America – Be a part of it,” and upon his return to Hastings, he put it up on the fence that surrounds his backyard on the corner of Highway 55 and Maple Street.

That’s when the fun began.

The city informed Chandler in a letter dated Oct. 1 that the banner was in violation of a city ordinance that prohibits banners in residential districts. The letter also directed Chandler to take it down by Oct. 8.

A few days later, after calling the city to inquire about the ordinance they claimed he was violating, Chandler received a letter stating it was a provision in the city’s sign code that prohibits campaign signs from going up more than 100 days before an election.

That didn’t seem right to Chandler, so he made up his mind to do something about it. He never questioned that he was in violation of the law, but the law itself struck Chandler as unconstitutional.

“How far am I willing to go?” Chandler asked. “As far as it takes to have the code changed in town.”

Admittedly, prior to this situation, Chandler didn’t know much about civil liberties, but it didn’t take long for him to read up on the subject. Ron Paul is a huge advocate of protecting civil liberties, Chandler said, which further inspired him to challenge the legality of the 100-day provision in the Hastings sign code.

“People are so used to being told what to do, they don’t know their civil liberties are being violated,” Chandler said.

He found two decisions from courts in Minnesota that dealt with similar issues, in which censorship of political signs was struck down because the laws violated the “content neutral” provision of free speech covered by the First Amendment.

Essentially “content neutral” means there can’t be restrictions on certain types of speech but not others. Campaign signs are considered political speech, while things like real estate “for sale” signs are considered commercial speech.

On Oct. 12, Chandler sent that information in an e-mail to Planning Director John Hinzman, who responded the next day by saying he would forward the information to City Attorney Dan Fluegel and that the city was standing by its sign code and asked him again to remove the banner.

Later that day Chandler received a second e-mail from Hinzman that said the city would be reviewing the ordinance and that it wouldn’t pursue any enforcement action against him.

Four days later, on Oct. 17, Chandler’s persistence paid off when the city informed him it would begin looking into changing the 100-day provision in the city’s sign code.

“I was a bit surprised,” he said. “I wasn’t sure they’d do it. I thought maybe they’d just leave me alone and not change it.”

Hastings City Attorney Dan Fluegel said the original ordinance was based on a model many cities in Minnesota use. The cities of Apple Valley and Rosemount both have 100-day provisions in their political sign laws.

Fluegel said upon close consideration of the ordinance, a change is warranted.

“Posting a sign is one form of speech and if an ordinance restricts some types of speech and not others, like commercial speech, then it’s subject to very high standards of scrutiny.”

He said cities are well within their rights to limit some things when it comes to political signs, like prohibiting them from being placed in a road or utility right-of-way or specifying what materials signs can be made of. What’s likely to be changed in the Hastings code is the elimination of any time restrictions on noncommercial signs.

A Minnesota law says “all noncommercial signs of any size may be posted in any number from August 1 in a state general election year until 10 days following the state general election.”

Fluegel said the Minnesota law will be applied in general election years, but in other years, the city’s sign code will be used.

In order to change the city code, a formal process must occur in which public hearings are held and City Council approves the change.

In the Oct. 17 letter to Chandler, Hinzman said the city would begin working on the revision and would have a draft ready for the Planning Commission to review in November or December.

Since protecting civil liberties is something Ron Paul takes very seriously, Chandler thinks Paul would be happy to see what he went through to fight for his rights in posting a campaign sign on his property.

“He’d think it’s fantastic. Chandler said. “I knew my rights and stood up for them.”

mavtek
10-25-2007, 10:11 AM
Ok just registered awesome signage news!!

BLS
10-25-2007, 10:12 AM
just cleaning it up a bit.

hopeforamerica
10-25-2007, 10:13 AM
Awesome!

Drknows
10-25-2007, 10:16 AM
I told ya free media attention!!! Oh and some civil liberties back haha. Good for you man!!!

mavtek
10-25-2007, 10:18 AM
Screaming silently from the Mountain tops for you!

ConstitutionGal
10-25-2007, 10:18 AM
This is odd because around here, the campaign signs ordinances only apply to public right-of-ways. I can post a campaign sign on my PRIVATE property any time I want although several localities do specify allowable sign size - something that I think should be challenged on a case by case basis.

Andrew76
10-25-2007, 10:22 AM
See, that's what I'm talkin' about. Maybe this guy would've never in his life worried aobut such a thing, but Ron Paul indirectly helped to realize his own authority as a citizen; his realization that people ARE used to being told what to do, and thinking "You know what? This is my house, and my fence. I'll put a sign here if I want to." So inspired, he does some research, contacts the local gov't, and they backed down. Well, not officially until the city council makes their ultimate decision. This kind of lesson needs to be hammered home, everywhere. These people work for YOU, not the other way around. If it's tax funded, they work for you.

BuddyRey
10-25-2007, 10:29 AM
SWEET!!!

The freedom message is spreading, guys. Pretty soon, it will be unstoppable.

Thomas_Paine
10-25-2007, 10:36 AM
Chris Chandler you are my hero!

Thank you for standing up FOR ALL OF US! What you did will have an impact throughout the nation. Now the next guy will stand with you and these tyrannical cities will have to step down and recognize our rights. Great Job~

BLS
10-25-2007, 10:36 AM
See, that's what I'm talkin' about. Maybe this guy would've never in his life worried aobut such a thing, but Ron Paul indirectly helped to realize his own authority as a citizen; his realization that people ARE used to being told what to do, and thinking "You know what? This is my house, and my fence. I'll put a sign here if I want to." So inspired, he does some research, contacts the local gov't, and they backed down. Well, not officially until the city council makes their ultimate decision. This kind of lesson needs to be hammered home, everywhere. These people work for YOU, not the other way around. If it's tax funded, they work for you.


BTW...'that' guy is me. :D

freelance
10-25-2007, 10:44 AM
Way To Go!

blamx8
10-25-2007, 10:46 AM
BLS,
Thanks for sharing that. Inspiring.

r3volution
10-25-2007, 10:53 AM
revolution 1
Hastings 0

me3
10-25-2007, 11:03 AM
Who here is willing to take on their city for the cause?

It's not only inspiring, it's motivational. Let's get moving...

bbachtung
10-25-2007, 11:15 AM
I saw this in the Google News search, but was glad to see that Chris "BLS" Chandler posted it here first.

Congrats, BLS.

Shink
10-25-2007, 11:27 AM
Awesome news, spread it: lewrockwell blog, daily paul, facebook. SDMF, BLS

McDermit
10-25-2007, 11:43 AM
Awesome! Congrats on your victory and on getting the article printed

kylejack
10-25-2007, 11:55 AM
BLS! Is this you?!


Hastings resident Chris Chandler never considered himself a “political person,” that is, until he discovered Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

“What he said was different than everyone else,” Chandler said. “The way he talks made so much sense.”

When Chandler first discovered Paul, who is also a congressman from Texas’ 14th district, he spent the entire day on the internet reading about him and watching debates Paul participated in. Initially it was Paul’s stance on the war in Iraq, which is essentially “get out now,” that attracted Chandler.

“For the first time in my life – I’m 36 – I’m seeing an honest politician,” Chandler said.

In early August, Chandler drove to Iowa to volunteer with the Ron Paul campaign during the Iowa straw poll. When he was there he purchased a banner that read “Ron Paul – Hope for America – Be a part of it,” and upon his return to Hastings, he put it up on the fence that surrounds his backyard on the corner of Highway 55 and Maple Street.

That’s when the fun began.

The city informed Chandler in a letter dated Oct. 1 that the banner was in violation of a city ordinance that prohibits banners in residential districts. The letter also directed Chandler to take it down by Oct. 8.

A few days later, after calling the city to inquire about the ordinance they claimed he was violating, Chandler received a letter stating it was a provision in the city’s sign code that prohibits campaign signs from going up more than 100 days before an election.

That didn’t seem right to Chandler, so he made up his mind to do something about it. He never questioned that he was in violation of the law, but the law itself struck Chandler as unconstitutional.

“How far am I willing to go?” Chandler asked. “As far as it takes to have the code changed in town.”

Admittedly, prior to this situation, Chandler didn’t know much about civil liberties, but it didn’t take long for him to read up on the subject. Ron Paul is a huge advocate of protecting civil liberties, Chandler said, which further inspired him to challenge the legality of the 100-day provision in the Hastings sign code.

“People are so used to being told what to do, they don’t know their civil liberties are being violated,” Chandler said.

He found two decisions from courts in Minnesota that dealt with similar issues, in which censorship of political signs was struck down because the laws violated the “content neutral” provision of free speech covered by the First Amendment.

Essentially “content neutral” means there can’t be restrictions on certain types of speech but not others. Campaign signs are considered political speech, while things like real estate “for sale” signs are considered commercial speech.

On Oct. 12, Chandler sent that information in an e-mail to Planning Director John Hinzman, who responded the next day by saying he would forward the information to City Attorney Dan Fluegel and that the city was standing by its sign code and asked him again to remove the banner.

Later that day Chandler received a second e-mail from Hinzman that said the city would be reviewing the ordinance and that it wouldn’t pursue any enforcement action against him.

Four days later, on Oct. 17, Chandler’s persistence paid off when the city informed him it would begin looking into changing the 100-day provision in the city’s sign code.

“I was a bit surprised,” he said. “I wasn’t sure they’d do it. I thought maybe they’d just leave me alone and not change it.”

Hastings City Attorney Dan Fluegel said the original ordinance was based on a model many cities in Minnesota use. The cities of Apple Valley and Rosemount both have 100-day provisions in their political sign laws.

Fluegel said upon close consideration of the ordinance, a change is warranted.

“Posting a sign is one form of speech and if an ordinance restricts some types of speech and not others, like commercial speech, then it’s subject to very high standards of scrutiny.”

He said cities are well within their rights to limit some things when it comes to political signs, like prohibiting them from being placed in a road or utility right-of-way or specifying what materials signs can be made of. What’s likely to be changed in the Hastings code is the elimination of any time restrictions on noncommercial signs.

A Minnesota law says “all noncommercial signs of any size may be posted in any number from August 1 in a state general election year until 10 days following the state general election.”

Fluegel said the Minnesota law will be applied in general election years, but in other years, the city’s sign code will be used.

In order to change the city code, a formal process must occur in which public hearings are held and City Council approves the change.

In the Oct. 17 letter to Chandler, Hinzman said the city would begin working on the revision and would have a draft ready for the Planning Commission to review in November or December.

Since protecting civil liberties is something Ron Paul takes very seriously, Chandler thinks Paul would be happy to see what he went through to fight for his rights in posting a campaign sign on his property.

“He’d think it’s fantastic. Chandler said. “I knew my rights and stood up for them.”
http://www.hastingsstargazette.com/articles/index.cfm?id=16216&section=news

GO BLS GO GO!

BLS
10-25-2007, 12:03 PM
I saw this in the Google News search, but was glad to see that Chris "BLS" Chandler posted it here first.

Congrats, BLS.

Thanks again for your help. That letter kicked their ass and they knew it.
You rock.

BLS
10-25-2007, 12:05 PM
BLS! Is this you?!


http://www.hastingsstargazette.com/articles/index.cfm?id=16216&section=news

GO BLS GO GO!

Yeah that's me.

You guys here were my inspiration. I really felt like a whole ton of people who I've never met were really backing me up, and that gave me the nuts to fight em.

I know it sounds corny...but it's true.

Brian Bailey
10-25-2007, 12:10 PM
I echo the sentiment from someone above... send that story to Lew Rockwell, Reuters, The Associated Press, CNN.com, etc.

You, sir, have turned yourself into an honest to goodness "human interest story", which is exactly the sort of thing the MSM eats up with a spoon.

(Honestly, someone should send it *for* him, otherwise it will just look like self-promotion.)

BLS
10-25-2007, 12:16 PM
Awesome news, spread it: lewrockwell blog, daily paul, facebook. SDMF, BLS

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/5884/sdmf3oq4.jpg

kylejack
10-25-2007, 12:22 PM
BLS,
Truck update.

Bradley in DC
10-25-2007, 12:34 PM
Chris, as the resident authority on the subject, perhaps you could start a new thread with a "what to challenge" and "how to challenge" explanation for everyone else--let's take this national!

Question_Authority
10-25-2007, 01:03 PM
WAY TO GO! I love this line: “People are so used to being told what to do, they don’t know their civil liberties are being violated,” Chandler said.

I have been searching for those words in my discussions with people who "think things are pretty much "OK" and they still feel free, even though they are kinda annoyed with regulations, etc."

I always try to convince them they are losing their freedoms but always struggle for the words and it sometimes backfires. I love your simple statement and will use it. THANKS!

BLS
10-25-2007, 04:06 PM
WAY TO GO! I love this line: “People are so used to being told what to do, they don’t know their civil liberties are being violated,” Chandler said.

I have been searching for those words in my discussions with people who "think things are pretty much "OK" and they still feel free, even though they are kinda annoyed with regulations, etc."

I always try to convince them they are losing their freedoms but always struggle for the words and it sometimes backfires. I love your simple statement and will use it. THANKS!


Thanks man. I guess I just told the guy the truth.
We're all used to be pushed around and I've had enough.