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

[RecycleMichael]

Oh, friendless bear...

Playing the "us po folk don't got the same rights in elections" card is getting old.

Ask 100 citizens how many want to pay more taxes and about a hundred of them will say no. The no side starts with a big edge on all votes to raise taxes and the yes side has to spend money to inform and persuade folks to agree.

All the "no" people have to do is to argue that the project is flawed in either detail or timing. Add in a few politicians who pander to the anti-everything crowd and it becomes very difficult for any community to fund improvements.

It is ok to oppose this tax and any other tax. Many of my co-workers and friends plan to vote no. But please stop the pity act claiming that the table is slanted unfairly.

The "no" crowd has had signs in the commercial corridors for weeks. Go to any intersection in town and you can see their work. I can't wait till the election is over so we can cleanup our city without being accused of stifling free speech.

[Bledsoe]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

Here is a link to an example of the problem with the wording of the law from the City primary election in February of 2006:

http://www.tulsatopics.com/tulsatopics/2006/02/budding_campaign_billboards_1.html

PM raises good points, but I just believe the size and number of signs in residential zones are the key elements for limitation.  Three or four small signs are a reasonable limit.  I should not be able to have a sign larger than 16 sq.ft.  Indeed, I would support a more restrictive size limit in residential areas.  

I should not be allowed to have a political/issue huge sign farm covering my residential lawn.  I think those are the types of sign laws that neighborhoods will tolerate and that most folks will comply with.  The worst kind of law is that kind that no one obeys and cannot be practically enforced.

Regulating content (unless obviously commercial) and policing the time period that a sign can stay up and come down would not be practical and probably unconstitutional.

Here is a link to very comprehensive opinion from the City Attorney of Missoula, MT surveying the law in this area and adopting my view regarding "political" signs:

ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Documents/Attorney/Opinions/2002/192002.pdf

His conclusion:

"The physical characteristics of political signs such as its maximum size,
or its location so as not to block visibility of motorists on private property or
banning political signs on public property are examples of acceptable political
sign regulation. The United States Supreme Court in City of Ladue v. Gilleo
(1994) 512 U.S. 43, 114 S. Ct. 2038, 129 L. Ed 3d 36; 1994 U. S. Lexis 4448
unanimously indicated that residential "political, religious, or personal
message" signs were permitted constitutional free speech rights pursuant to
the First Amendment.

There are court cases that have held invalid local government restrictions
attempting to limit the number of temporary political signs to two (2) or the
time period when political signs are allowed to sixty (60) days."

[shadows]

Had a call from a citizen wanting to know where he could pick up a VOTE NO sign to put in his yard.   Said he had a perfect location where much traffic had to go by.   Can anyone help with this request?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Oh, friendless bear...

Playing the "us po folk don't got the same rights in elections" card is getting old.

Ask 100 citizens how many want to pay more taxes and about a hundred of them will say no. The no side starts with a big edge on all votes to raise taxes and the yes side has to spend money to inform and persuade folks to agree.

All the "no" people have to do is to argue that the project is flawed in either detail or timing. Add in a few politicians who pander to the anti-everything crowd and it becomes very difficult for any community to fund improvements.

It is ok to oppose this tax and any other tax. Many of my co-workers and friends plan to vote no. But please stop the pity act claiming that the table is slanted unfairly.

The "no" crowd has had signs in the commercial corridors for weeks. Go to any intersection in town and you can see their work. I can't wait till the election is over so we can cleanup our city without being accused of stifling free speech.

Anyone with the least bit of analytical ability can discern that so-called Non-Partisan elections concerning constitutional amendments, local sales, bond or School bond issues, and the like are an absolutely RIGGED contest.

There are NO LIMITS on how much can be raised and spent by a group advocating for the election issue, unlike in candidate campaigns.

NONE.

The Vote YES Cabal has already raised at least $1.3 million to cram another sales tax increase down our throats.

They are being GIVEN free air time by Cocks Cable. Over $50,000 worth as reported.

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

And, it is presumed that a large subset of the Vote YES Tax Vampires who are also Vote YES contributors will also be DIRECT BENEFICIARIES of the spending flowing from the new Kaiser River Tax.

[cannon_fodder]

Grumpy Bear - if they delivered what is promised and win an open bidding process, I do not care who benefits from it.  May the best company win.

That said, you are advocating for "less rigged" elections by having the government regulate elections more.  I hope you see the irony in that.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Grumpy Bear - if they delivered what is promised and win an open bidding process, I do not care who benefits from it.  May the best company win.

That said, you are advocating for "less rigged" elections by having the government regulate elections more.  I hope you see the irony in that.

In my own words, I would say that there definitely need to be reasonable individual campaign limits in non-partisan elections, just like we have in partisan candidate elections.

The reason there isn't is simple:  Because it involves what really matters to the ruling Oklahoma Oligarch Families:  

Raising ever more Tax Dollars, and then gaming the system every way possible to siphon off as much as humanly possible.  Working for a living is too hard; they'd rather spend a $1 million promoting getting $300 million.  

What a HANDSOME return on their investment!

Witness the Rooneys, Flint, Lortons and Kaiser financial interests, for starters.  They received the lion's share of the Vision 2025 tax spending.

Anyone doubt they'll also have their snouts full into the Kaiser River Tax gravy??

For instance, the Tulsa County eschews competitive bidding in many respects. There was no competitive bidding on hiring a bond advisor.  Former Tulsa Co. Commissioner Dirty Bob Dick's "dear" friend John Piercey was handed that financial plum.

There was NO competitive bidding on splitting the bond-underwriting gravy between F&M Bank and BOK, nor the bond trustee responsibilities.

Expect a repeat performance, in spades, of self-dealing Oligarchy Patronage if the Kaiser River Tax - Phase I passes.

[:O]

[Bledsoe]

As I said before-----

$  =  Free Speech.

If you believe in free speech then those that have $ get to speak without limitation, especially government limitation.  This is not Burma.

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

I suppose you could design a system that would have public financing of issues like the River Tax--pro/con, but then you might have folks like Accountability Burns and Paul Tay getting public money--not that I don't agree with them more often than not.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe

As I said before-----

$  =  Free Speech.

If you believe in free speech then those that have $ get to speak without limitation, especially government limitation.  This is not Burma.

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

I suppose you could design a system that would have public financing of issues like the River Tax--pro/con, but then you might have folks like Accountability Burns and Paul Tay getting public money--not that I don't agree with them more often than not.

Even if Paul Tay or Accountability Burns got money it would be a vast improvement over the broken system we have now.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe

As I said before-----

$  =  Free Speech.

If you believe in free speech then those that have $ get to speak without limitation, especially government limitation.  This is not Burma.

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

I suppose you could design a system that would have public financing of issues like the River Tax--pro/con, but then you might have folks like Accountability Burns and Paul Tay getting public money--not that I don't agree with them more often than not.

Well, for some reason, there ARE campaign limits on what state and local candidates can raise from individual contributors.  That fact does NOT seem to violate any free speech rights.

The problem of NO LIMITS on what can be spent on Tax Issues, is that the Tax Vampires, who fully expect to be the recipients of the tax largesse, have so MUCH free speech funded by their $millions that they simply DROWN OUT the free speech rights of anyone else.

Why?  Because free speech isn't really without cost?

Oh, you can stand on the sidewalk and shout VOTE NO all day, and hold up a NO RIVER TAX sign until you arms fall off.

The Tax Vampires have wall-to-wall Mass Media buys, slickly constructed multi-color litho direct mail, telephone canvassers, Push-Polls, in-kind contributions provided by Cocks Cable TV, multiple ads on Channel 862, 24x7 radio spots, and newspaper "news" coordinated with Echo-Chamber Editorials daily in the Lorton's World.

The local controlling power Oligarch can boastfully say:  Ain't free speech great?

[:O]

[rwarn17588]

<FB wrote:

Oh, you can stand on the sidewalk and shout VOTE NO all day, and hold up a NO RIVER TAX sign until you arms fall off.

<end clip>

I would advise against that. No arms makes it difficult to eat, especially at formal dinners.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

<FB wrote:

Oh, you can stand on the sidewalk and shout VOTE NO all day, and hold up a NO RIVER TAX sign until you arms fall off.

<end clip>

I would advise against that. No arms makes it difficult to eat, especially at formal dinners.

It's called a figurative expression, not a literal expression.

You must have been out stealing hubcaps again, when they covered figures-of-speech in Freshman English.

West Tulsa?

That's what is called an Oxymoron.

Nyuk-Nyuk-Nyuk.

[]

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

<FB wrote:

Oh, you can stand on the sidewalk and shout VOTE NO all day, and hold up a NO RIVER TAX sign until you arms fall off.

<end clip>

I would advise against that. No arms makes it difficult to eat, especially at formal dinners.

It's called a figurative expression, not a literal expression.

You must have been out stealing hubcaps again, when they covered figures-of-speech in Freshman English.

West Tulsa?

That's what is called an Oxymoron.

Nyuk-Nyuk-Nyuk.

[]

Dammit, there goes another kitten.

[cannon_fodder]

I've actually been paying attention to signs lately... there are 2 times as many NO signs as YES signs it seems.  I thought NO was an underfunded grass roots movement?  Who is funding their campaign?  Much is made about funding for YES but NO seems to have some funding as well.

Most YES yards have one sign.  Most NO yards have 3 signs.  I also have counted 1 YES sign on a median and a retarded number of NO signs.  Not sure what that indicates.

AND... just for fun, a NO sign appeared on the edge of my lawn.  I figure it was my neighbors and left it at that (it was technically partially in my lawn).  Well, I was outside yesterday doing some work and he asked if I could move my sign since he was having company over and did not want to start a political debate with them.  He thought it was mine, I thought it was his!  NO idea where it came from, kinda funny though.  Some poor NO person is no complaining that someone stole their sign.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I've actually been paying attention to signs lately... there are 2 times as many NO signs as YES signs it seems.  I thought NO was an underfunded grass roots movement?  Who is funding their campaign?  Much is made about funding for YES but NO seems to have some funding as well.

Most YES yards have one sign.  Most NO yards have 3 signs.  I also have counted 1 YES sign on a median and a retarded number of NO signs.  Not sure what that indicates.

AND... just for fun, a NO sign appeared on the edge of my lawn.  I figure it was my neighbors and left it at that (it was technically partially in my lawn).  Well, I was outside yesterday doing some work and he asked if I could move my sign since he was having company over and did not want to start a political debate with them.  He thought it was mine, I thought it was his!  NO idea where it came from, kinda funny though.  Some poor NO person is no complaining that someone stole their sign.

I've driven through some neighborhoods without a single no and 40-50 yeses. It all varies by neighborhood.

On the other hand, I hear Ken Busby has TWO yes signs in his yard..

[RecycleMichael]

On my block there are four YES signs and four NO signs. I assume the others are MAYBE but the maybe campaign is the one that is really underfunded.

Two signs in a person's yard? Wow. That must really cloud his judgement.