Sign Sign Everywhere a Sign..........

[Bledsoe]

Friendly Bear paid me a nice compliment over in another thread that got side-tracked talking about Tulsa's sign laws during this political season.  See below and at http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7596&whichpage=5.    He asked me to weigh in on the issue.  

I thought it needed its on special thread.

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

If it's an unconstitutional ordinance, why don't you call the ACLU or a civil-rights lawyer?

If you're that bothered by it, act instead of complain.

There are at least two active lawyers responding on this Topic.

Cannon Fodder apparently does not think the ordinance is Unconstitutional.

Don't know what Bledsoe thinks about the sign ordinance.  

Bledsoe could be the right man for the job. .

Apparently, he's got some considerable backbone and tenacity, considering his involvement in getting the DISCRIMINATORY form of city government changed in 1989, tearing the city a new one in the process.

As I understand it, he was more recently a leader of a group fighting to keep the Strong Mayor/City Council organization from being changed into the At-Large Councilor evil machinations of the Lorton's World.

Maybe he'll opine....

Calling Mr. Bledsoe. The citizens of Tulsa need your guts and brains again.

[Bledsoe]

Here is what I think about signs in Tulsa:

1.  Removal of commercial signs in city ROW (medians & inside the normal 12' line along arterial streets) should be the top enforcement priority.  This is the equivalent of litter and trash;

2.  Next, removal of commercial signs in residential areas;

3.  Next removal of "illegal" signs in residential and office areas--this includes political and real estate signs larger than 16 sq. ft.;

4.  Next removal of political signs on city ROW,  including the normal 12', along arterial streets.

There is absolutely no constitutional problem with banning political signs from city property and ROW.  There is a great need to put the penalty on the person, business or politician who places the sign illegally rather than just on the property owner.  There is room for improvement here.

As far as I can tell the Tulsa zoning code and other city laws correctly authorize these practices except for the need to fine the person placing the sign.  There is no constitutional problem.  I support Recycle Michael and all his helpers in these areas.

Now there are some constitutional problems.

1.  Limiting political signs in residential and office areas to not more than 45 days before an election to 7 days after an election---I think such a ban probably violates free speech, especially as it relates to how early the political season starts these days.  I do support the size limit of 16 sq.ft.--no more super-sized political signs in residential and office areas.  Size limits but not time limits are legal.

2.  Banning all political signs in residential and office areas unless they relate to an election.  This bans signs like "Stop the Chop",  
"Stop the Box" & "Preserve Mid-Town.Com."  I think this rule has serious free speech issues.  As far as I know there has been no official effort to enforce this rule.

Government can reasonably regulate speech (including political & commercial speech) in its time, place and manner, but totally banning issue speech like "Stop the Chop" in residential areas probably goes too far.

3.  Another free speech/discrimination issue has also been raised by Friendly Bear and that is his claim that government and its agents might be removing Vote No signs and not removing Yes signs from public ROW.  If this can be proven it would be a violation of the 1st Amendment and Equal Protection.

Now let us all talk among ourselves.

 

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe

Here is what I think about signs in Tulsa:

1.  Removal of commercial signs in city ROW (medians & inside the normal 12' line along arterial streets) should be the top enforcement priority.  This is the equivalent of litter and trash;

2.  Next, removal of commercial signs in residential areas;

3.  Next removal of "illegal" signs in residential and office areas--this includes political and real estate signs larger than 16 sq. ft.;

4.  Next removal of political signs on city ROW,  including the normal 12', along arterial streets.

There is absolutely no constitutional problem with banning political signs from city property and ROW.  There is a great need to put the penalty on the person, business or politician who places the sign illegally rather than just on the property owner.  There is room for improvement here.

As far as I can tell the Tulsa zoning code and other city laws correctly authorize these practices except for the need to fine the person placing the sign.  There is no constitutional problem.  I support Recycle Michael and all his helpers in these areas.

Now there are some constitutional problems.

1.  Limiting political signs in residential and office areas to not more than 45 days before an election to 7 days after an election---I think such a ban probably violates free speech, especially as it relates to how early the political season starts these days.  I do support the size limit of 16 sq.ft.--no more super-sized political signs in residential and office areas.  Size limits but not time limits are legal.

2.  Banning all political signs in residential and office areas unless they relate to an election.  This bans signs like "Stop the Chop",  
"Stop the Box" & "Preserve Mid-Town.Com."  I think this rule has serious free speech issues.  As far as I know there has been no official effort to enforce this rule.

Government can reasonably regulate speech (including political & commercial speech) in its time, place and manner, but totally banning issue speech like "Stop the Chop" in residential areas probably goes too far.

3.  Another free speech/discrimination issue has also been raised by Friendly Bear and that is his claim that government and its agents might be removing Vote No signs and not removing Yes signs from public ROW.  If this can be proven it would be a violation of the 1st Amendment and Equal Protection.

Now let us all talk among ourselves.

Thank you for opining, Bledsoe.

You've already provided a link to my opinion, in your introduction.

I would just add, that overall I think that the ordinance AND the enforcement is merely a pretext by the local governing Elite to stifle the expression of opinion in one of the few mediums (no pun intended) that they can afford.

It causes a rather DISPARATE IMPACT on a small, unfunded grass roots Dis-Organization like the Vote No group, vs. absolutely NO IMPACT on the $1,000,000's of dollars funding the Cabal of Vote YES Tax Vampires.  NONE.

They already have wall-to-wall TV ads, radio ads, newspaper ads, newspaper "news" and Op-Ed in the Lorton's World, multiple mailings of multi-color litho direct mail, hired phone banks, push-polls, and every other campaign technique available to a super well-funded organization that wants to set public policy FOR THE PURPOSE OF PICKING IT CLEAN TO LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS.

Additionally, there are absolutely no individual Vote YES campaign funding raising limits.  NONE.

It is a totally rigged game.

So, from the standpoint of those in the local ruling elite who NEED to FEED their GREED, they just must have their ordinance.

That's my $0.002 worth.

[:O]

[Rico]

Originally posted by Friendly Bear.

quote:

They already have wall-to-wall TV ads, radio ads, newspaper ads, newspaper "news" and Op-Ed in the Lorton's World, multiple mailings of multi-color litho direct mail, hired phone banks, push-polls, and every other campaign technique available to a super well-funded organization that wants to set public policy FOR THE PURPOSE OF PICKING IT CLEAN TO LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS.

FB I am glad you made this statement...

If I am reading the ballot for the "River Tax" correctly....

If the Vote Yes folks win...?

We stand to be responsible for the monies spent on the above mentioned Campaign Extravaganza...

Correct...?

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

Originally posted by Friendly Bear.

quote:

They already have wall-to-wall TV ads, radio ads, newspaper ads, newspaper "news" and Op-Ed in the Lorton's World, multiple mailings of multi-color litho direct mail, hired phone banks, push-polls, and every other campaign technique available to a super well-funded organization that wants to set public policy FOR THE PURPOSE OF PICKING IT CLEAN TO LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS.

FB I am glad you made this statement...

If I am reading the ballot for the "River Tax" correctly....

If the Vote Yes folks win...?

We stand to be responsible for the monies spent on the above mentioned Campaign Extravaganza...

Correct...?

The way the ballot is written, you'd be correct.

Of course, it has to be a County cost, so it'd be passed as a subcontract of some kind for reimbursement to those who actually put up the original funding.

Then again, maybe, if passed, the County would renig on that, too, claiming they got what they bought, and keep it for themselves.

"Win-Win"

FWIW, every ballot that I can remember had this very provision. It needs to be removed or reworded to limit. But, no one ever asks us what the actual ballot is going to say.

They always go for least restrictive, and a blank check is pretty much the Holy Graile for them.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

Originally posted by Friendly Bear.

quote:

They already have wall-to-wall TV ads, radio ads, newspaper ads, newspaper "news" and Op-Ed in the Lorton's World, multiple mailings of multi-color litho direct mail, hired phone banks, push-polls, and every other campaign technique available to a super well-funded organization that wants to set public policy FOR THE PURPOSE OF PICKING IT CLEAN TO LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS.

FB I am glad you made this statement...

If I am reading the ballot for the "River Tax" correctly....

If the Vote Yes folks win...?

We stand to be responsible for the monies spent on the above mentioned Campaign Extravaganza...

Correct...?

On October 9th, if the Tulsa COUNTY Election Board reports that the Kaiser County River Tax passed, then you will see a veritable FEEDING FRENZY of the Tax Vampires devouring buckets of blood......

New TAXES!  $282 million in fresh tax blood.

[]

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

Originally posted by Friendly Bear.

quote:

They already have wall-to-wall TV ads, radio ads, newspaper ads, newspaper "news" and Op-Ed in the Lorton's World, multiple mailings of multi-color litho direct mail, hired phone banks, push-polls, and every other campaign technique available to a super well-funded organization that wants to set public policy FOR THE PURPOSE OF PICKING IT CLEAN TO LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS.

FB I am glad you made this statement...

If I am reading the ballot for the "River Tax" correctly....

If the Vote Yes folks win...?

We stand to be responsible for the monies spent on the above mentioned Campaign Extravaganza...

Correct...?

The local controlling Elite here absolutely do not need yard-sized campaign signs to get their message out to the public.

But, the yard signs are really the only affordable advertising medium available to the unfunded Vote NO Dis-Organization.

The Vote Yes cabal besides the aforementioned mass media and direct mail outlets, also has the not-so-subtle leverage with over Channels 862 that with hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars available for TV spots, they naturally cow the negative reporting possibilities against the River Tax.

And, accentuate the POSITIVE of the proposed tax.

And Cocks Cable, those slime-bags, donated free airtime for the Vote Yes ads.  $56,000 in donated IN-KIND contributions by Cocks. It's in the expenditure reports.

Cancel my Cocks cable service, please.  

Hello, Direct TV Satellite Dish.


[:O]

[Double A]

We need clean elections to clean up Tulsa government and give power back to the people instead of the private special interests. This is how we will become a progressive city, not by allowing ourselves to be held hostage by the regressive influence, oppression, and dominance of private special interests. Wouldn't you agree, Bledsoe?

[pmcalk]

To get back on the topic of signs, I agree with most of your comments, Bledsoe, but would add a couple of points.  First, I would discourage the city from removing any political signs in ROW abutting private houses.  Most homeowners don't know what part of their yard is in the ROW (some may not even know there is a ROW).  When anyone starts taking signs out of someone's yard, it will just lead to trouble.  Unless it is blocking visibility, it should be left alone.

I initially thought the time frame restriction for campaign signs & the limit of campaign affiliation was a bad ordinance.  But the more I think about it, the more I believe it is necessary.  After all, without some restriction, people may place signs up and leave them--perhaps for years.  While there is restrictions on square footage, there is no restriction on total number of signs in our current ordinance.  Some might cover their entire yard with signs, and leave them till they fall down.  And if you don't tie the sign to an election, your opening the door for signs that border on obscene.  You will be forced to rule between those with political content, those with commercial, and those just downright obscene.  I don't have a problem with the stop the chop or preservemidtown signs.  On the other hand, I can certainly imagine other types of signs that would bother me.  I don't want the city picking and choosing which signs are inappropriate.  By banning signs altogether, except for those directly affiliated with an election, the city removes itself from having to judge the content of signs.

[Bledsoe]

PM points out some problems with the current political sign law, but suggests they must be related to elections to have some limits.  

This imposes a total ban on political speech unrelated to an election--such as Stop the Chop, Preservemidtown and Stop the Box. PM suggests that  linking the sign law to elections "removes the City from having to judge the content of signs."  But this law bans a whole class of political speech.  

I suggest that cannot be constitutional.  I don't think it is a reasonable regulation of time place or manner.  I would certainly favor a limit on the number and size of all political signs in a residential zone and a regulation on their upkeep (no melting or decaying signs) , but I draw the line at a total ban on non-commercial speech.

[Bledsoe]

quote:Originally posted by Double A



We need clean elections to clean up Tulsa government and give power back to the people instead of the private special interests. This is how we will become a progressive city, not by allowing ourselves to be held hostage by the regressive influence, oppression, and dominance of private special interests. Wouldn't you agree, Bledsoe?

I certainly agree we need the public financing plan suggested by this link.  It would be a great thing and would promote clean government.    

The plan adopted in Portland, Arizona and several other jurisdictions appear to be limited to election of candidates to public office rather than tax proposals or other non-candidate elections.  Double A are there other proposals for these kinds of elections?

As long as the US Supreme Court considers the ability to spend your own money in support of your own political opinion an element of free speech

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
Buckley v. Valeo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia),

then I think those who have funds and are willing to spend their money in support of their speech will always have an advantage.

[Bledsoe]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

I would just add, that overall I think that the ordinance AND the enforcement is merely a pretext by the local governing Elite to stifle the expression of opinion in one of the few mediums (no pun intended) that they can afford.

It causes a rather DISPARATE IMPACT on a small, unfunded grass roots Dis-Organization like the Vote No group, vs. absolutely NO IMPACT on the $1,000,000's of dollars funding the Cabal of Vote YES Tax Vampires.  NONE.

They already have wall-to-wall TV ads, radio ads, newspaper ads, newspaper "news" and Op-Ed in the Lorton's World, multiple mailings of multi-color litho direct mail, hired phone banks, push-polls, and every other campaign technique available to a super well-funded organization that wants to set public policy FOR THE PURPOSE OF PICKING IT CLEAN TO LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS.

Additionally, there are absolutely no individual Vote YES campaign funding raising limits.  NONE.

It is a totally rigged game.

So, from the standpoint of those in the local ruling elite who NEED to FEED their GREED, they just must have their ordinance.

That's my $0.002 worth.

[:O]

It seems to me the devil is in the details.  

I think Recycle Michael and other sign pollution advocates are to be commended.  Their primary gripe and attack has been on the large number of commercial signs along city arterial streets and  medians--tanning salons, roofing companies, lawn services, etc.  This had become a serious quality of life issue for me.

Do you really have evidence that the city or the  sign task force are now primarily targeting political signs rather than their ordinary work on commercial litter type signs?

During the last several elections (and most past elections) most if not all incumbent office holders campaigns placed their signs on public property--in effect littering the streets, IMHO.  I know this was true for Randi Miller and former Mayor LaFortune, as well as most judicial candidates.  I guess they felt that since everybody else does it--they must too--or be out signed by the other side.

One bad act does not deserve another.  I long for the day when a candidate for public office ( or VOTE Yes/No groups) will pledge to abide by all sign laws and challenge others to do the same.  

Until then, the guidelines I listed in my original proposal should be followed in that order.  The sign laws and the new attitude for enforcement should not be used as a pretext to favor one political group over another.  On the other hand, some message must be sent to all that there is a real sign litter problem.

Littering our streets in the name of economical free speech is not the way I would go, especially in the age of the internet and blogs like this.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe

PM points out some problems with the current political sign law, but suggests they must be related to elections to have some limits.  

This imposes a total ban on political speech unrelated to an election--such as Stop the Chop, Preservemidtown and Stop the Box. PM suggests that  linking the sign law to elections "removes the City from having to judge the content of signs."  But this law bans a whole class of political speech.  

I suggest that cannot be constitutional.  I don't think it is a reasonable regulation of time place or manner.  I would certainly favor a limit on the number and size of all political signs in a residential zone and a regulation on their upkeep (no melting or decaying signs) , but I draw the line at a total ban on non-commercial speech.

While limiting the number of signs might help, I would be concerned about an objective standard for determining "decaying" signs.  I could see it being abused.

I am not saying it is the best approach, but I don't think the current ordinance is unconstitutional.  I think it could be defended as a neutral time restriction.  And I don't know that it prohibits an entire class of political speech.  Like so many other problems with our zoning code, political campaign sign is not defined.  And the ordinance clearly does not restrict the types of signs allowed to those directly related to the election at hand. Most would agree that a political sign does not have to be related to a person, but can be related to a political position as well.  Technically, I believe you could put up Stop the Chop or PreserveMidtown signs 45 days before any election (Oct. 9th included).  

As for allowing any non-commercial speech at any time, wouldn't you also have to allow commercial as well?  How would you distinguish?  For example, there is a sign around 36th & Harvard--some guy attacking the contractor who built his house.  Is that political, commercial or neither?  What about a political sign sponsored by a company?  And again what about offense signs?  And religious signs?  How could you prevent those, once you allow all signs?

I also worry that if the city allows too many signs, it will loose the ability to regulate signage in residential areas at all.  The city has a legitimate interest in eliminating visual clutter.  But if everyone is already allowed a sign in their yard, why couldn't they be allowed two or three?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

I would just add, that overall I think that the ordinance AND the enforcement is merely a pretext by the local governing Elite to stifle the expression of opinion in one of the few mediums (no pun intended) that they can afford.

It causes a rather DISPARATE IMPACT on a small, unfunded grass roots Dis-Organization like the Vote No group, vs. absolutely NO IMPACT on the $1,000,000's of dollars funding the Cabal of Vote YES Tax Vampires.  NONE.

They already have wall-to-wall TV ads, radio ads, newspaper ads, newspaper "news" and Op-Ed in the Lorton's World, multiple mailings of multi-color litho direct mail, hired phone banks, push-polls, and every other campaign technique available to a super well-funded organization that wants to set public policy FOR THE PURPOSE OF PICKING IT CLEAN TO LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS.

Additionally, there are absolutely no individual Vote YES campaign funding raising limits.  NONE.

It is a totally rigged game.

So, from the standpoint of those in the local ruling elite who NEED to FEED their GREED, they just must have their ordinance.

That's my $0.002 worth.

[:O]

It seems to me the devil is in the details.  

I think Recycle Michael and other sign pollution advocates are to be commended.  Their primary gripe and attack has been on the large number of commercial signs along city arterial streets and  medians--tanning salons, roofing companies, lawn services, etc.  This had become a serious quality of life issue for me.

Do you really have evidence that the city or the  sign task force are now primarily targeting political signs rather than their ordinary work on commercial litter type signs?

During the last several elections (and most past elections) most if not all incumbent office holders campaigns placed their signs on public property--in effect littering the streets, IMHO.  I know this was true for Randi Miller and former Mayor LaFortune, as well as most judicial candidates.  I guess they felt that since everybody else does it--they must too--or be out signed by the other side.

One bad act does not deserve another.  I long for the day when a candidate for public office ( or VOTE Yes/No groups) will pledge to abide by all sign laws and challenge others to do the same.  

Until then, the guidelines I listed in my original proposal should be followed in that order.  The sign laws and the new attitude for enforcement should not be used as a pretext to favor one political group over another.  On the other hand, some message must be sent to all that there is a real sign litter problem.

Littering our streets in the name of economical free speech is not the way I would go, especially in the age of the internet and blogs like this.

Recycle's Sign Gestapo vacumn ALL signs along the so-called city Right-of-Way.

Campaigns sign included.

Which has ABSOLUTELY no effect on the Vote YES Cabal that has already raised $1.3 million to cram another sales tax increase down our throats.

They are being GIVEN free air time by Cocks Cable.  $56,000 worth so far.

They have $100,000's to spend on direct mail, TV, and Radio advertising.

They don't NEED any signs.

Again, the sign ordinance causes a DISPARATE IMPACT on tiny, unfunded grass roots political organizations.

It silences them.

[Double A]

If the fairness doctrine were in effect, would an equal amount of free air time have to be granted to the No River Tax side?