Political Sign Policy

[Brent]

Here 'tis, on Consent Agenda:

http://www.townofcary.org/pd/pl05031.htm

What a crock! As nearly as I can tell, this says:

"Holly et al made a lot of really good, really important points about major problems with our political sign ordinance."

"Therefore, we are not changing the political sign ordinance. :roll: :roll: :P :P

[washere]

Here's what I find most interesting:
In the report, Mr. Ulma cites the Supreme Court case Ladue v Gilleo. One wonders if he even bothered to read it, or if he just heard that it's the landmark case on political sign rights and threw it in here for good measure.

Justice Stevens delivered the UNANIMOUS decision of the court, and O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion. From O'Connor's opinion:

Held:

The ordinance violates a Ladue resident's right to free speech. Pp. 4-16.


(a) While signs pose distinctive problems, and thus are subject to municipalities' police powers, measures regulating them inevitably affect communication itself. Such a regulation may be challenged on the ground that it restricts too little speech because its exemptions discriminate on the basis of signs' messages, or on the ground that it prohibits too much protected speech. For purposes of this case, the validity of Ladue's submission that its ordinance's various exemptions are free of impermissible content or viewpoint discrimination is assumed. Pp. 4-10.

(b) Although Ladue has a concededly valid interest in minimizing visual clutter, it has almost completely foreclosed an important and distinct medium of expression to political, religious, or personal messages. Prohibitions foreclosing entire media may be completely free of content or viewpoint discrimination, but such measures can suppress too much speech by eliminating a common Page II means of speaking. Pp. 10-13.

(c) Ladue's attempt to justify the ordinance as a "time, place, or manner" restriction fails because alternatives such as handbills and newspaper advertisements are inadequate substitutes for the important medium that Ladue has closed off. Displaying a sign from ones' own residence carries a message quite distinct from placing the same sign someplace else, or conveying the same text or picture by other means, for it provides information about the speaker's identity, an important component of many attempts to persuade. Residential signs are also an unusually cheap and convenient form of communication. Furthermore, the audience intended to be reached by a residential sign - neighbors - could not be reached nearly as well by other means. Pp. 13-14.

(d) A special respect for individual liberty in the home has long been part of this Nation's culture and law, and has a special resonance when the government seeks to constrain a person's ability to speak there. The decision reached here does not leave Ladue powerless to address the ills that may be associated with residential signs. In addition, residents' self-interest in maintaining their own property values and preventing "visual clutter" in their yards and neighborhoods diminishes the danger of an "unlimited" proliferation of signs. Pp. 15-16.

The story here is so great. She's got political signs, and the city "knocks down" her signs. She sues claiming First Amendment violations. She then finds out that "window signs" are illegal, so she puts a sign in her window, gets cited for it, and then amends her complaint to include that violation as well. :twisted:

My concerns:
-I thought I heard somewhere that window signs were still outlawed. Is that accurate?
-Mr. Ulma recommends a rule governing that after a certain period of time after an election signs must be removed. Um...I thought the Supreme Court ruled in a "slam dunk" manner that governing the "time, place, or manner" of such signs was an egregious violation of First Amendment rights.
-This line interests me particularly:
" Traffic safety is of particular concern in residential neighborhoods, where young children often play in front yards and in other areas abutting the streets. Although traffic loads on residential streets are typically lower than on other streets, the concerns with traffic safety on such streets are as great or greater than such concerns on the Town’s arterial streets and roads;"
Now what does this have to do with signs??? I suppose the line of thought is that signs distract motorists from paying attention to the road. But then I guess there shouldn't ever be anything along the streets, because they could conceivably distract me from paying attention to the road.

This is the real kicker for me though:
"The residential neighborhoods of our Town, however, remain the areas in which our residents continually tell us that it is most important to reduce clutter and to maintain a pleasing aesthetic environment. For that reason, it is essential that regulations permitting signs that express opinions on matters of public interest be subject to reasonable limits to prevent unnecessary visual clutter in the neighborhoods;"
It's not unnecessary visual clutter- IT'S FREE SPEECH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Talk about a major yikes. But yeah, I don't think it's very likely that Mr. Ulma actually read Stevens' or O'Connor's UNANIMOUS opinions that ordinances like this are unConstitutional.

[johnb]

Ulma & the Critters will do exactly what they think they can get away with.

It will take a judge smashing a gavel ordering them to cease enforcement of that ordinance to get the problem solved.

Unless we are willing to engage in a mass violation, all get cited, hire an attorney to represent us all, and file a court case against them we're wasting our breath.

A court order is the ONLY language these people will allow themselves to understand. Period. You cannot talk or reason to or with them.

[Brent]

Holly, where are you?

[Laurie]

All I can say is - Just wait until the next election. You will have never seen anything like it in a residential yard. I've already discussed my plan with Brent. I can't wait! And the best part is that it will meet the LDO rules.

[Don]

Laurie - off topic a bit, but could you email me that lovely picture of Brent to the left with the bunny ears things on? I have an idea...... :wink:

[Laurie]

Laurie - off topic a bit, but could you email me that lovely picture of Brent to the left with the bunny ears things on? I have an idea...... :wink:

It's a flower head band. There were twelve of us at a Durham Bulls game in one of the terrace boxes wearing them. I'll try e-mailing it.

[Brent]

It's a flower head band. There were twelve of us at a Durham Bulls game in one of the terrace boxes wearing them. I'll try e-mailing it.

Beware what is e-mailed...there were 12 of us wearing them, you know. :wink: