Well, horse-puckey. What should I do?

[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 “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

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."