This video really should wake you up to how tough this battle will be. American freedoms are in great jeopardy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJG3GB4EXag
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJG3GB4EXag
Code Enforcement: The New Gestapo
- Thread starter pennycat
- Start date
constituent
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2007
- Messages
- 13,724
couldn't agree more. i believe it is San Antonio that calls them "code compliance"
yuck.
yuck.
EvilEngineer
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,639
Here is an idea... or a question..
If you paint your FENCE into a sign, does it still count? I mean it's your fence, and you haven't added anything to it aside from paint. No different than staining the fence really, and that's not in the code anywhere.
If you paint your FENCE into a sign, does it still count? I mean it's your fence, and you haven't added anything to it aside from paint. No different than staining the fence really, and that's not in the code anywhere.
EvilEngineer
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,639
Santana28
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
- Messages
- 970
you know, more than likely.... the code enforcement officer probably just didn't read the ordinance. if "signs" along the roadway are not permitted, but "political signs" have different requirements - perhaps it was just a misunderstanding about the rules. They might look at the "signs" rule and think "well, political signs are signs - so this must apply as well."
just playing devil's advocate here. the guy should definitely go to city hall about it though, and not just roll over - he's in the right. the important thing is making it an issue and establishing a precedent - so that the other enforcement officers know how to handle it in the future in a uniform way.
just playing devil's advocate here. the guy should definitely go to city hall about it though, and not just roll over - he's in the right. the important thing is making it an issue and establishing a precedent - so that the other enforcement officers know how to handle it in the future in a uniform way.
ConstitutionGal
Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,399
This is yet another way the establishment maintains the status quo...through local 'ordinances'. Most places have size restrictions for signs posted on private property and date AND size restrictions for signs posted on public property for political campaigns.
Check you area, make sure you're within codes and then post those 'ordinance' compliant signs!! If you are given any trouble after doing this, it's time to call ALL your local media and make a HUGE stink about it!
Check you area, make sure you're within codes and then post those 'ordinance' compliant signs!! If you are given any trouble after doing this, it's time to call ALL your local media and make a HUGE stink about it!
DrNoZone
Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,815
Maybe so. But if so, then why has he never been harassed for them before since he has had local politicians signs up on that fence? And furthermore, the officer removed the signs himself, which is clearly trespassing and I'm sure illegal.
ConstitutionGal
Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,399
There IS something fishey going on here. Most ALL localities will issue some type of 'warning' before taking things to the next level. Also, in many places, it requires a court order before these 'officials' can physically remove anything that is against local 'codes'. They have to give the property owner the option of 'correcting' the violation themselves. This was obviously not done in the case and should be taken up in the public forum of the local city or county commission meetings.
Santana28
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
- Messages
- 970
It could simply be someone new on the job, dont you think? If it someone who was hired after the most recent political election, they may have never read the political ordainances yet. As far as code enforcement goes (i get to do a little of it myself on my job) its usually the newbies that are more gung-ho about things than the people that have been around the block. Most departments are NOT looking to cause a huge stink over things and the person who said it before is right... they just want to maintain the "status-quo"... from what i've seen.
I could be totally wrong, but i dont think it hurts to consider it either. Just get your facts together, and place a (polite) phone call to the officer's supervisor. If that doesn't work, go higher up and a little more assertive. Should work - and if not, then you'll definitely know they just don't like Ron Paul signs
TruckinMike
Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,738
If its a sign its regulated... "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its a duck" were the words of a judge that convicted me of 7 sign ordnance violations. Even though the city regs. Which I read in advance, did not include my banner hanging from one of my rigs. I was not subject to regulations via their own LAW.
Lessoned learned, laws mean nothing. Of course by the judges own definition of a sign, which was "anything in type that conveyed a message", he was in violation of his own quack like a duck law, I asked him "did you pull a permit, and get a wind load analysis for that Dr.Pepper can on your desk"
That could have been my mistake...
Truckinmike
Lessoned learned, laws mean nothing. Of course by the judges own definition of a sign, which was "anything in type that conveyed a message", he was in violation of his own quack like a duck law, I asked him "did you pull a permit, and get a wind load analysis for that Dr.Pepper can on your desk"
That could have been my mistake...
Truckinmike
Last edited:
Got a link? This is far from a settled!
I am fighting this same thing. It is illegal and unconstituional under federal law. My lawyer's letter below. We are currently trying to see if the township will modify the ordinance or we will sue for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief to Enforce the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Make sure you go to a lawyer and/or the ACLU if this happens to you. These laws are blatently unconsitutional, and lawyers will take them for free as the law allows them to collect attorney fees from the defendants in cases like this.
VIA EMAIL
To: Gilbert High, Solicitor - Lower Merion Township
cc: Each and every Lower Merion Township Commissioner
RE: Political Yard Signs
Dear Mr. High:
The Lower Merion Township Code provides the following:
§ 155-93.1. Exempt signs. [Amended 1-18-1995 by Ord. No. 3378]
The following signs shall be allowed without a sign permit and shall not be included in the determination of the type, number or area of permanent signs allowed within a zoning district. However, no exempt signs may project into the right-of-way of any public or private road, except for a governmental sign, and except for temporary signs authorized by Chapter 133 and this chapter.
C. Political signs, provided that no sign shall be displayed more than 45 calendar days prior to an election or for more than two days following the election for which it is erected.
I read this to mean that political signs may not be displayed more than 45 calendar days prior to an election. It is my client's intent to display a standard sized political yard sign many months before the election that pertains to the political yard sign.
The law is clear that the display of political signs constitutes pure speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has held that the "First Amendment has the 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 Lower Merion Township Code specifically singles out political signs as a category, it is a content-based restriction that must be supported by a compelling government interest. Further, the means chosen to effect such interest must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective. See Boos v. Barry 485 U.S. 312, 321 (1988).
Lower Merion Township's restriction clearly cannot meet this heavy, strict scrutiny burden. I call your attention to several different circuit cases that have struck down various ordinances restricting the display of political signs: Curry v. Prince George's County, Maryland 33 F. Supp.2d 447 (D. Md.1999) (durational limit with respect to political lawn signs unconstitutional)(my emphasis added); Arlington County Republican Committee v. Arlington County, Virginia 983 F.2d 587 (4th Cir. 1993) (two sign limit unconstitutional even when 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 the First Amendment); Savago v. Village of New Paultz 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).
Additionally, the United States Court of Appeals decision in Beaulieu v. City of Alabaster 454 F.3d 1219, 1233 (11th Cir. 2006) is quite relevant. That case involved a city ordinance that imposed bureaucratic requirements on political signs that did not apply to other signs. Lower Merion Township Code provides for political signs only to be displayed 45 days prior and two days following an election, while other types of signs per Lower Merion Township Code do not have these strict requirements. Beaulieu provides that "because political signs are subject to more regulatory burden... the sign ordinance discriminates against political speech in favor of commercial speech".
Please advise by October 12th, 2007 (one week) as to Lower Merion Township's position on the constitutionality of the above referenced Township Code. It is my clients intent to place a political lawn sign in his lawn and on his property numerous months before the election referencing the political sign on October 13th, 2007, but client will not do so if he is under threat of receiving an unconstitutional fine - as he is per the Lower Merion Township Code.
It is only reasonable for Lower Merion Township follow the rule of law and do what is correct and proper. I remind the Lower Merion Township commissioners that each of you has sworn an oath to uphold the United States Constitution, and that this issue involves the individual and constitutional rights of a citizen of Lower Merion Township.
Please feel free to contact me if you would further like to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
VIA EMAIL
To: Gilbert High, Solicitor - Lower Merion Township
cc: Each and every Lower Merion Township Commissioner
RE: Political Yard Signs
Dear Mr. High:
The Lower Merion Township Code provides the following:
§ 155-93.1. Exempt signs. [Amended 1-18-1995 by Ord. No. 3378]
The following signs shall be allowed without a sign permit and shall not be included in the determination of the type, number or area of permanent signs allowed within a zoning district. However, no exempt signs may project into the right-of-way of any public or private road, except for a governmental sign, and except for temporary signs authorized by Chapter 133 and this chapter.
C. Political signs, provided that no sign shall be displayed more than 45 calendar days prior to an election or for more than two days following the election for which it is erected.
I read this to mean that political signs may not be displayed more than 45 calendar days prior to an election. It is my client's intent to display a standard sized political yard sign many months before the election that pertains to the political yard sign.
The law is clear that the display of political signs constitutes pure speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has held that the "First Amendment has the 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 Lower Merion Township Code specifically singles out political signs as a category, it is a content-based restriction that must be supported by a compelling government interest. Further, the means chosen to effect such interest must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective. See Boos v. Barry 485 U.S. 312, 321 (1988).
Lower Merion Township's restriction clearly cannot meet this heavy, strict scrutiny burden. I call your attention to several different circuit cases that have struck down various ordinances restricting the display of political signs: Curry v. Prince George's County, Maryland 33 F. Supp.2d 447 (D. Md.1999) (durational limit with respect to political lawn signs unconstitutional)(my emphasis added); Arlington County Republican Committee v. Arlington County, Virginia 983 F.2d 587 (4th Cir. 1993) (two sign limit unconstitutional even when 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 the First Amendment); Savago v. Village of New Paultz 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).
Additionally, the United States Court of Appeals decision in Beaulieu v. City of Alabaster 454 F.3d 1219, 1233 (11th Cir. 2006) is quite relevant. That case involved a city ordinance that imposed bureaucratic requirements on political signs that did not apply to other signs. Lower Merion Township Code provides for political signs only to be displayed 45 days prior and two days following an election, while other types of signs per Lower Merion Township Code do not have these strict requirements. Beaulieu provides that "because political signs are subject to more regulatory burden... the sign ordinance discriminates against political speech in favor of commercial speech".
Please advise by October 12th, 2007 (one week) as to Lower Merion Township's position on the constitutionality of the above referenced Township Code. It is my clients intent to place a political lawn sign in his lawn and on his property numerous months before the election referencing the political sign on October 13th, 2007, but client will not do so if he is under threat of receiving an unconstitutional fine - as he is per the Lower Merion Township Code.
It is only reasonable for Lower Merion Township follow the rule of law and do what is correct and proper. I remind the Lower Merion Township commissioners that each of you has sworn an oath to uphold the United States Constitution, and that this issue involves the individual and constitutional rights of a citizen of Lower Merion Township.
Please feel free to contact me if you would further like to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
lucius
Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 3,347
Nothing like using huge-resources funded with your tax dollars for your own enslavement--imagine what it could be like with say the military?
This sh*t pisses me off--he's the guy stuck with the 360 'easy payments' yet he does not really own anything: simply masterful!
This sh*t pisses me off--he's the guy stuck with the 360 'easy payments' yet he does not really own anything: simply masterful!
It could simply be someone new on the job, dont you think? If it someone who was hired after the most recent political election, they may have never read the political ordainances yet. As far as code enforcement goes (i get to do a little of it myself on my job) its usually the newbies that are more gung-ho about things than the people that have been around the block. Most departments are NOT looking to cause a huge stink over things and the person who said it before is right... they just want to maintain the "status-quo"... from what i've seen.
I could be totally wrong, but i dont think it hurts to consider it either. Just get your facts together, and place a (polite) phone call to the officer's supervisor. If that doesn't work, go higher up and a little more assertive. Should work - and if not, then you'll definitely know they just don't like Ron Paul signs
Hey, Santana28, I got a question for you. Do you ever stand up for your rights? I mean you have two posts in this thread that makes you look like the apologist for the Code Enforcement department.
I know this is kind of jumping your case, but darn it, there is way too much whining and 'let's play nice' folks around here. Are we the Ron Paul Revolution or are we the Rudy McRomney Get Along Folks??
I feel sorry for the people who undergo this kind of harassment, but this is really very good for the cause. What these authorities fail to realize about this freedom movement is that the more they exercise their authority to suppress, the more justification they provide for the movement's foundation. I see it as a net positive that fuels the movement (with apologies to all who have to deal with the authorities through it all).
He needs to call the ACLU!!!!
Similar threads
