hollyL
07-16-2004, 07:43 PM
I met Mr. Hyatt last night briefly at the town meeting and I am glad to find a forum for discussions specific to Cary. I have lived in Cary about 4 years now and own a home. Since I've been here I've seen the town do some really...let's say...odd things. What happened this week was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.
Being the law abiding citizen that I am, before I put up my "candidate for office" yard sign I phoned the zoning department to see if I needed a permit. The nice lady told me that I would need to get a permit but before I could put the sign up the CANDIDATE had to fill out a registration and pay a $25.00 fee. During most of my discussion I have attempted to conceal my political identity if for nothing more than it really should matter/isn't anyone's business at the town hall. So just for the affect of saying "The White House" I asked her to please clarify. Was I to phone up President Bush and ask for him to complete this form? Her reply, "I'm just stating our policies". I thought this was pretty strange and that I probably had gotten some no-nothing on the phone so I called back. There was a little confusion about whether *I* needed a permit but the gentleman assured me that the candidate did. I said, "I tried the white house switch board and Pres. Bush is busy with some terrorist war thing or something so I don't think he can get the time to fill out this application". He didn't see my humor. Nevertheless, this is the law. I was directed to various forms, policies and ordinances (most of which are below) and waited to hear back from the Pres. Bush - I still haven't. I called both the GOP and Democratic headquarters and honestly I think they thought I was completely nuts.
One thing that I've noticed is that Cary has a bunch of laws that they don't make people follow or there really isn't a consequences if they break the law. Apparently this one is one of them. I asked why I had to go through all this trouble but my neighbor has a sign up. Why wasn't the city fining them and confiscating their signs? Why do people who attempt to obey the law have to pay and be hassled but those who don't just put their sign up and that's it? Oh course I received no answers to any of these questions.
Personally, I don't think it is any business of the town what I do on my own private property; however, I don't want my neighbor running a crack house and the other having signs all over their yards either. There has to be a balance and I believe that is precisely what is missing here.
Another thing that adds to all my frustration is this sort of "City on a Hill" type theory that the town has. They go around garbling up subdivision when the people who live there have no interest in being part of Cary. They set up soooooooooo illegal road blocks and harass law abiding citizens. Now apparently they think they can make any law they want even if the United States Supreme Court has already struck it down - on numerous occasions!
After my little speech during the public speaks out (see text/notes below). A nice gentleman from the zoning department came out and talked with me. He told me I really shouldn't have any concerns about this because it is not enforced on private property...only in public areas. He told me they had picked up around 300 signs in the past few weeks and that they give the candidate the opportunity to come pick them up...and they usually do...and then go put them right back up. I asked him which candidates had paid their $25, he did not know. I'm not sure how they know whose to pick up then :~)
The town also has the right to come onto your *private* property and take down what they deem illegal or improper signs. I guess we can add the fourth amendment to the list of constitutional rights the town of Cary doesn't have to abide by. I'm starting to think that Cary seceded from the union and no one told me. OK now I'm just complaining...
Frankly, I don't like people telling me what to do, especially the gov't. I really don't like it when they tell me to do something stupid. So I put together the little speech below and headed off to the "Public Speaks Out".
So...My goal in this pursuit is to:
1) Make a reasonable law that does not almost word-for-word violate ordinances already struck down by the US Supreme Court for violations of the 1st amendment free speech clause/Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment (and some other lawyer stuff like that)
2) Enforce the laws on the books *equally* to all people!
Following are my notes from the speech during speak out...it is not a transcript but I followed it pretty close. I also included some extra legal citations in case anyone asked me. There are also the referring docs - I put those in there because I didn't think anyone would believe me :~)
Cary Town Council Meeting
July 15, 2004 6:30 p.m.
"Pubic Speaks Out"
----being text----
On Monday I phoned the zoning department inquiring about a permit to post a political yard sign on my property (Vote for Bush or Kerry for example). I was informed by the employee that before I put the sign on my own, private property the candidate was required to fill out an application and pay a $25.00 fee to the Town of Cary. She also informed me of several restrictions on the time which I would be allowed to have such a sign in my yard and the number of signs. I was also informed that the town goes onto citizens' private property and removes signs that they determine are in violation of the ordinance.
The current ordinances regarding political signs in the Town of Cary are not only unduly burdensome to its citizens and political candidates but I believe in violation of the first amendment free speech clause.
In my opinion, the individual's right to participate in free elections and our individual freedoms, particularly free speech are the cornerstones of our democracy. Since signs are considered a form of communication, the authority of the Town of Cary is limited by the free speech provisions prescribed in our state and federal constitutions.
The Supreme Court has recognized that political signs have long been an "important and distinct medium of expression." Several courts of this country, including the United States Supreme Court, have repeatedly ruled that restrictions on political campaign signs such as requiring permits, charging fees and limitations on the times which you can post the signs are unconstitutional for example in City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994) and Curry v. Prince George's County (1999).
The Supreme Court has said that the "communication by signs and posters is virtually pure speech" and that the First Amendment has "…its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office."
Any mandatory fees for posting a political sign are essentially a tax on speech. Moreover depending on someone else to pay a fee for me before I can exercise my free speech is downright preposterous.
In closing, I respectfully request that the council promptly repeal all laws associated with the posting of political signs that require a permit, payment of any fees, limitations on the number of signs per issue or candidate, or limits the times which one can place the sign on private property.
----end text----
Referring docs/links:
Political Sign Application: http://www.townofcary.org/redistrict/politicalsignapp.pdf
Political Sign Regulations: http://www.townofcary.org/redistrict/politicalsigns.pdf
Sign Code Brochure: http://www.townofcary.org/depts/dsdept/signordinance/signbrochure.pdf
Sign Ordinance: http://www.townofcary.org/depts/dsdept/P&Z/ldo/chapter9.pdf
Sign Permit Application: http://www.townofcary.org/depts/dsdept/signpermit.pdf
1. City of Antioch v. Candidates' Outdoor Graphic Service, 557 F. Supp. 52 (N.D. Cal. 1982)
The court struck down an ordinance restricting the placement of political signs to a period of 60 days before an election. Embracing the general test of reasonableness for time, place and manner restrictions, discussed above, the court concluded that the time restriction there involved was not reasonable. Although the court found the interest significant, limiting political campaign signs to 60 days without similar limitation on other types of signs was held to be a fatal selective exclusion based on content.
2. City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994)
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1856.ZS.html
An ordinance of Petitioner City of Ladue bans all residential signs but those falling within one of ten exemptions, for the principal purpose of minimizing the visual clutter associated with such signs. Respondent Gilleo filed this action, alleging that the ordinance violated her right to free speech by prohibiting her from displaying a sign stating, "For Peace in the Gulf," from her home. The District Court found the ordinance unconstitutional, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the ordinance was a "content based" regulation, and that Ladue's substantial interests in enacting it were not sufficiently compelling to support such a restriction.
Supreme Court - Held: The ordinance violates a Ladue resident's right to free speech.
3. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/connick.html
Whether speech is of public concern is determined by the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record. "Speech on public issues occupies the 'highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values' and is entitled to special protection."
4. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=429&page=190
Argued that the law constituted invidious discrimination against males and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
5. Curry v. Prince George's County, 33 F. Supp.2d 447 (D. Md. 1999)
http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990216/1964.htm
An ordinance of Prince George's County, Maryland prohibits the posting of "campaign signs" more than 45 days before an election. The signs of an unsuccessful primary candidate must be removed within 10 days after the primary; those of a candidate successful in the primary who posted before the primary may remain up until 10 days following the general election. The ordinance requires, before the signs are posted, that a permit be obtained and a fee paid.
The Court holds that on its face the ordinance, insofar as it imposes durational limitations on the posting of political campaign signs by individuals at their private residences, unconstitutionally impinges upon their First Amendment rights.
6. Dimas v. City of Warren, 939 F. Supp. 554 (E.D. Mich. 1996)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=oh/cases/991769.htm
Ordinance deemed unconstitutional which prohibited posting of political yard signs earlier than forty-five days prior to any election, and ordering removal within seven days after.
7. Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/453/490.html
Ordinance that substantially restricted both commercial and noncommercial off-site billboards as well as noncommercial on-site billboards held unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
8. Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265 (1971)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/401/265.html
The constitutional protection afforded political speech has its "fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office."
9. Outdoor Systems v. City of Lenexa, 67 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Ks. 1999)
A municipal ordinance requiring that political campaign signs be removed within seven days after the election or campaign issue has been decided, was a content-based speech restriction not required to further a compelling state interest and narrowly tailored to achieve that end, and was invalid under First Amendment and its state constitutional counterpart. The court observed that other types of signs, either had no removal deadlines or had longer ones.
10. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 596 -597, and nn. 44-45 (1980)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/445/573.html
A special respect for individual liberty in the home has long been part of our culture and our law, see, e.g., Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 596-597
Since the New York Court of Appeals majority treated both cases as involving routine arrests with ample time to gain a warrant; the Supreme Court will do the same. This throws out any "exigent circumstances" argument that would justify a warrantless entry into a home.
11. Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 406 , 409, 411 (1974)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/418/405.html
In 1974, the Court overturned a prosecution by finding that the state statute was vague.
In Spence v. Washington, the Court held that the taping of a peace symbol to a flag was expressive conduct and thus protected by the First Amendment. In both of these later cases the Court expressly referred to the federal statute in a positive manner. Where this Court held that displaying a United States flag with a peace symbol attached to it was conduct protected by the First Amendment.
12. Whitton v. City of Gladstone, 54 F.3d 1400 (8th Cir. 1995)
Ordinance deemed unconstitutional which limited placement or erection of political signs from thirty days prior to the election to which the sign pertains until seven days after the election.
Political Signs By ROGER HUEBNER, General Counsel, IML JERRY ZARLEY, Paralegal, IML http://www.iml.org/legalsection/legal_q&a/2000/03march.htm
US Const, Am I and Const 1963, art 1, Sec. 5--freedom of speech protection for political campaign signs placed on private property http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/1980s/op06258.htm
Being the law abiding citizen that I am, before I put up my "candidate for office" yard sign I phoned the zoning department to see if I needed a permit. The nice lady told me that I would need to get a permit but before I could put the sign up the CANDIDATE had to fill out a registration and pay a $25.00 fee. During most of my discussion I have attempted to conceal my political identity if for nothing more than it really should matter/isn't anyone's business at the town hall. So just for the affect of saying "The White House" I asked her to please clarify. Was I to phone up President Bush and ask for him to complete this form? Her reply, "I'm just stating our policies". I thought this was pretty strange and that I probably had gotten some no-nothing on the phone so I called back. There was a little confusion about whether *I* needed a permit but the gentleman assured me that the candidate did. I said, "I tried the white house switch board and Pres. Bush is busy with some terrorist war thing or something so I don't think he can get the time to fill out this application". He didn't see my humor. Nevertheless, this is the law. I was directed to various forms, policies and ordinances (most of which are below) and waited to hear back from the Pres. Bush - I still haven't. I called both the GOP and Democratic headquarters and honestly I think they thought I was completely nuts.
One thing that I've noticed is that Cary has a bunch of laws that they don't make people follow or there really isn't a consequences if they break the law. Apparently this one is one of them. I asked why I had to go through all this trouble but my neighbor has a sign up. Why wasn't the city fining them and confiscating their signs? Why do people who attempt to obey the law have to pay and be hassled but those who don't just put their sign up and that's it? Oh course I received no answers to any of these questions.
Personally, I don't think it is any business of the town what I do on my own private property; however, I don't want my neighbor running a crack house and the other having signs all over their yards either. There has to be a balance and I believe that is precisely what is missing here.
Another thing that adds to all my frustration is this sort of "City on a Hill" type theory that the town has. They go around garbling up subdivision when the people who live there have no interest in being part of Cary. They set up soooooooooo illegal road blocks and harass law abiding citizens. Now apparently they think they can make any law they want even if the United States Supreme Court has already struck it down - on numerous occasions!
After my little speech during the public speaks out (see text/notes below). A nice gentleman from the zoning department came out and talked with me. He told me I really shouldn't have any concerns about this because it is not enforced on private property...only in public areas. He told me they had picked up around 300 signs in the past few weeks and that they give the candidate the opportunity to come pick them up...and they usually do...and then go put them right back up. I asked him which candidates had paid their $25, he did not know. I'm not sure how they know whose to pick up then :~)
The town also has the right to come onto your *private* property and take down what they deem illegal or improper signs. I guess we can add the fourth amendment to the list of constitutional rights the town of Cary doesn't have to abide by. I'm starting to think that Cary seceded from the union and no one told me. OK now I'm just complaining...
Frankly, I don't like people telling me what to do, especially the gov't. I really don't like it when they tell me to do something stupid. So I put together the little speech below and headed off to the "Public Speaks Out".
So...My goal in this pursuit is to:
1) Make a reasonable law that does not almost word-for-word violate ordinances already struck down by the US Supreme Court for violations of the 1st amendment free speech clause/Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment (and some other lawyer stuff like that)
2) Enforce the laws on the books *equally* to all people!
Following are my notes from the speech during speak out...it is not a transcript but I followed it pretty close. I also included some extra legal citations in case anyone asked me. There are also the referring docs - I put those in there because I didn't think anyone would believe me :~)
Cary Town Council Meeting
July 15, 2004 6:30 p.m.
"Pubic Speaks Out"
----being text----
On Monday I phoned the zoning department inquiring about a permit to post a political yard sign on my property (Vote for Bush or Kerry for example). I was informed by the employee that before I put the sign on my own, private property the candidate was required to fill out an application and pay a $25.00 fee to the Town of Cary. She also informed me of several restrictions on the time which I would be allowed to have such a sign in my yard and the number of signs. I was also informed that the town goes onto citizens' private property and removes signs that they determine are in violation of the ordinance.
The current ordinances regarding political signs in the Town of Cary are not only unduly burdensome to its citizens and political candidates but I believe in violation of the first amendment free speech clause.
In my opinion, the individual's right to participate in free elections and our individual freedoms, particularly free speech are the cornerstones of our democracy. Since signs are considered a form of communication, the authority of the Town of Cary is limited by the free speech provisions prescribed in our state and federal constitutions.
The Supreme Court has recognized that political signs have long been an "important and distinct medium of expression." Several courts of this country, including the United States Supreme Court, have repeatedly ruled that restrictions on political campaign signs such as requiring permits, charging fees and limitations on the times which you can post the signs are unconstitutional for example in City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994) and Curry v. Prince George's County (1999).
The Supreme Court has said that the "communication by signs and posters is virtually pure speech" and that the First Amendment has "…its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office."
Any mandatory fees for posting a political sign are essentially a tax on speech. Moreover depending on someone else to pay a fee for me before I can exercise my free speech is downright preposterous.
In closing, I respectfully request that the council promptly repeal all laws associated with the posting of political signs that require a permit, payment of any fees, limitations on the number of signs per issue or candidate, or limits the times which one can place the sign on private property.
----end text----
Referring docs/links:
Political Sign Application: http://www.townofcary.org/redistrict/politicalsignapp.pdf
Political Sign Regulations: http://www.townofcary.org/redistrict/politicalsigns.pdf
Sign Code Brochure: http://www.townofcary.org/depts/dsdept/signordinance/signbrochure.pdf
Sign Ordinance: http://www.townofcary.org/depts/dsdept/P&Z/ldo/chapter9.pdf
Sign Permit Application: http://www.townofcary.org/depts/dsdept/signpermit.pdf
1. City of Antioch v. Candidates' Outdoor Graphic Service, 557 F. Supp. 52 (N.D. Cal. 1982)
The court struck down an ordinance restricting the placement of political signs to a period of 60 days before an election. Embracing the general test of reasonableness for time, place and manner restrictions, discussed above, the court concluded that the time restriction there involved was not reasonable. Although the court found the interest significant, limiting political campaign signs to 60 days without similar limitation on other types of signs was held to be a fatal selective exclusion based on content.
2. City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994)
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1856.ZS.html
An ordinance of Petitioner City of Ladue bans all residential signs but those falling within one of ten exemptions, for the principal purpose of minimizing the visual clutter associated with such signs. Respondent Gilleo filed this action, alleging that the ordinance violated her right to free speech by prohibiting her from displaying a sign stating, "For Peace in the Gulf," from her home. The District Court found the ordinance unconstitutional, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the ordinance was a "content based" regulation, and that Ladue's substantial interests in enacting it were not sufficiently compelling to support such a restriction.
Supreme Court - Held: The ordinance violates a Ladue resident's right to free speech.
3. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/connick.html
Whether speech is of public concern is determined by the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record. "Speech on public issues occupies the 'highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values' and is entitled to special protection."
4. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=429&page=190
Argued that the law constituted invidious discrimination against males and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
5. Curry v. Prince George's County, 33 F. Supp.2d 447 (D. Md. 1999)
http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990216/1964.htm
An ordinance of Prince George's County, Maryland prohibits the posting of "campaign signs" more than 45 days before an election. The signs of an unsuccessful primary candidate must be removed within 10 days after the primary; those of a candidate successful in the primary who posted before the primary may remain up until 10 days following the general election. The ordinance requires, before the signs are posted, that a permit be obtained and a fee paid.
The Court holds that on its face the ordinance, insofar as it imposes durational limitations on the posting of political campaign signs by individuals at their private residences, unconstitutionally impinges upon their First Amendment rights.
6. Dimas v. City of Warren, 939 F. Supp. 554 (E.D. Mich. 1996)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=oh/cases/991769.htm
Ordinance deemed unconstitutional which prohibited posting of political yard signs earlier than forty-five days prior to any election, and ordering removal within seven days after.
7. Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/453/490.html
Ordinance that substantially restricted both commercial and noncommercial off-site billboards as well as noncommercial on-site billboards held unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
8. Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265 (1971)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/401/265.html
The constitutional protection afforded political speech has its "fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office."
9. Outdoor Systems v. City of Lenexa, 67 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Ks. 1999)
A municipal ordinance requiring that political campaign signs be removed within seven days after the election or campaign issue has been decided, was a content-based speech restriction not required to further a compelling state interest and narrowly tailored to achieve that end, and was invalid under First Amendment and its state constitutional counterpart. The court observed that other types of signs, either had no removal deadlines or had longer ones.
10. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 596 -597, and nn. 44-45 (1980)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/445/573.html
A special respect for individual liberty in the home has long been part of our culture and our law, see, e.g., Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 596-597
Since the New York Court of Appeals majority treated both cases as involving routine arrests with ample time to gain a warrant; the Supreme Court will do the same. This throws out any "exigent circumstances" argument that would justify a warrantless entry into a home.
11. Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 406 , 409, 411 (1974)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/418/405.html
In 1974, the Court overturned a prosecution by finding that the state statute was vague.
In Spence v. Washington, the Court held that the taping of a peace symbol to a flag was expressive conduct and thus protected by the First Amendment. In both of these later cases the Court expressly referred to the federal statute in a positive manner. Where this Court held that displaying a United States flag with a peace symbol attached to it was conduct protected by the First Amendment.
12. Whitton v. City of Gladstone, 54 F.3d 1400 (8th Cir. 1995)
Ordinance deemed unconstitutional which limited placement or erection of political signs from thirty days prior to the election to which the sign pertains until seven days after the election.
Political Signs By ROGER HUEBNER, General Counsel, IML JERRY ZARLEY, Paralegal, IML http://www.iml.org/legalsection/legal_q&a/2000/03march.htm
US Const, Am I and Const 1963, art 1, Sec. 5--freedom of speech protection for political campaign signs placed on private property http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/1980s/op06258.htm