By Antonio D. French
Filed Thursday, July 12, 2007 at 6:42 AM
The Board of Adjustment sided with the City yesterday and ordered Jim Roos' two-story "End Eminent Domain Abuse" mural to be removed. Labels: Eminent_Domain
Roos, a longtime anti-eminent domain activist, argued before the Board that supporters of the use of eminent domain often have hundreds of thousands of dollars at their disposal to persuade city officials and the general public. But opponents, many of them poor or elderly homeowners, may only have signs on their own property as their only means to inform neighbors and warn the public about the dark side of eminent domain.
But one alderman thinks neighbors informing neighbors may not be such a good thing. Roos' attorney supplied PubDef.net with a copy of a letter Ald. Phyllis Young (7th Ward) wrote to the city's zoning administrator.
"If this sign is allowed to remain," wrote Young, "then anyone with property along any thoroughfare can paint signs indicating the opinion or current matter relevant to the owner to influence passersby with no control by any City agency."
The stating of one's opinion without the approval of the government? What's next — an informed electorate, high voter participation, accountability to the general public? Anarchy!
9 Comments:
Unbelievable! What's next? Citizens will begin placing medium sized rectangular pieces of cardboard on their lawns indicating which candidate they prefer in the next election? Or maybe that if we believe in peace, we should work for justice. And there's not a damn thing a City Agency can do about it!!
If it comes down to that, I'm moving to the County.
7/12/2007 8:51 AM
This seems ripe for the ACLU, government restricting expression on political matters.
The patriotic argument--
Cue the weepy music. . .
This country was founded on, among other things, the right to criticize government. Now government wants to restrict the forum in which the criticism is given.
Now the libertarian argument--
The building is private property and the government should keep its mitts off of it.
There are many other arguments against it, but these two should be enough for most people.
7/12/2007 9:07 AM
Sounds like our friendly 7th ward Alderwoman is a little bit fascist?
7/12/2007 9:49 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
7/12/2007 9:55 AM
Moreover, I would reference this
Supreme court case:
CITY OF LADUE v. MARGARET P. GILLEO
An ordinance of the City of Ladue prohibits homeowners from displaying any signs on their property except "residence identification" signs, "for sale" signs, and signs warning of safety hazards. The ordinance permits commercial establishments, churches, and nonprofit organizations to erect certain signs that are not allowed at residences. The question presented is whether the ordinance violates a Ladue resident's right to free speech.
...Ladue contends, however, that its ordinance is a mere regulation of the "time, place, or manner" of speech because residents remain free to convey their desired messages by other means, such as hand-held signs, "letters, handbills, flyers, telephone calls, newspaper advertisements, bumper stickers, speeches, and neighborhood or community meetings." However, even regulations that do not foreclose an entire medium of expression, but merely shift the time, place, or manner of its use, must "leave open ample alternative channels for communication." In this case, we are not persuaded that adequate substitutes exist for the important medium of speech that Ladue has closed off.
Displaying a sign from one's own residence often carries a message quite distinct from placing the same sign someplace else, or conveying the same text or picture by other means. Precisely because of their location, such signs provide information about the identity of the "speaker." As an early and eminent student of rhetoric observed, the identity of the speaker is an important component of many attempts to persuade. A sign advocating "Peace in the Gulf" in the front lawn of a retired general or decorated war veteran may provoke a different reaction than the same sign in a 10-year-old child's bedroom window or the same message on a bumper sticker of a passing automobile. An espousal of socialism may carry different implications when displayed on the grounds of a stately mansion than when pasted on a factory wall or an ambulatory sandwich board.
Residential signs are an unusually cheap and convenient form of communication. Especially for persons of modest means or limited mobility, a yard or window sign may have no practical substitute. Even for the affluent, the added costs in money or time of taking out a newspaper advertisement, handing out leaflets on the street, or standing in front of one's house with a hand-held sign may make the difference between participating and not participating in some public debate. Furthermore, a person who puts up a sign at her residence often intends to reach neighbors, an audience that could not be reached nearly as well by other means.
This case indicates that owners may display signs on their personal property. I would take this to Court.
7/12/2007 9:59 AM
This a violation of ones freedom of speech. The city of St. lOuis has never set a precedent like this...........its sad to see that it is in the process of doing it now.
7/12/2007 11:42 AM
Does Alderman Young always come across as a fascist, or is this the first time? Why does she take this stance and risk her personal reputation for a mere $28,800 a year?
7/12/2007 1:43 PM
Hah, I was never aware of that Ladue Supreme Court case. Speaking as someone who went to high school there, the day that someone in Ladue actively protests with "hand-held signs" is the day that said protester gets hassled by the police for disturbing their neighbors.
As we all know, self-expression is so indecorous.
7/12/2007 3:33 PM
Do any of these communities have restrictions regarding motorcycle noise?
It seems to me, that if someone is allowed to crank up the noise level of a machine twice as many decibles as is legal with a car to convey the message that "I am such a dumb sh#t that I ride something where I am 16 times as likely to get killed on it as you are in your car" then people should not be hassled about signs---which operate at zero decibles.
kjoe
7/13/2007 1:34 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home