We read:
"At issue is the city's effort to remove a two-story mural — that protests condemnation proceedings — from the side of a brick building near Soulard. The city has said the mural, on 13th Street and visible from two highways, is about 10 times larger than the sign ordinance allows. The city also says it doesn't fit within any categories that are exempt from the ordinance, such as art.
Jim Roos, who had the words "End Eminent Domain Abuse" painted on his building in 2007, calls the crackdown censorship. His attorney, Michael Bindas, of the Institute for Justice, said that in refusing some signs but exempting others, the city is making the exact type of content-based decisions that are prohibited by the First Amendment.
U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey had sided with the city on the matter in March, prompting Roos' appeal. There is no set timeline for the appeals court panel to rule.
Roos, the founder of the inner-city property management company Neighborhood Enterprises, has had several of his properties declared "blighted" and taken by eminent domain. The building that hosts the mural is within a 219-acre area that has also been targeted under the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority Law.
The redevelopment authority was the first to take issue with the mural, saying it ran afoul of the city's blight ordinance. The appeals court ruled in 2008 that the authority could not make that decision.
Source
8 comments:
Looks like the arrogant city officials are trying to stiffle a perfectly legal objection to this entimate domain which should be declaired UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Is it just me or when you look at the sign, it appears to be say: STOP ending eminent domain abuse, therefore it is saying, let's keep doing eminent domain abuse?
Anon 5:06 AM,
It is indeed a double negative, requiring a non-literal interpretation of its meaning by the viewer ... which makes it art ... which makes it exempt from the bylaw!
The bottom line is, that it's a political statement and therefor clearly protected by the First Amendment, regardless of what some local political hack in a black robe says.
"Rather than useful jobs in our country, people have been offered bureaucratic "make work," rather than moral leadership, they have been given bread and circuses, spectacles, and, yes, they have even been given scandals. Tonight there is violence in our streets, corruption in our highest offices, aimlessness among our youth, anxiety among our elders and there is a virtual despair among the many who look beyond material success for the inner meaning of their lives. Where examples of morality should be set, the opposite is seen. Small men, seeking great wealth or power, have too often and too long turned even the highest levels of public service into mere personal opportunity."
-- Barry Goldwater
Political signs are usually not exempt from sign ordinances and this is how you get around the 1st amendment issue. Everyone is limited, therefore no one is penalized. This comes up quite often when a sign ordinance for, say billboards, limits advertisements to local companies. This has been struck down every time I've seen it come up. Most sign ordinances have a size limit expressed in square feet. Political signs might be exempt, but if they are they're typically required to be temporary and the ordinance would specify how long it can remain. This sign is clearly not temporary. If it were a banner or painted on the side of a truck...
I live fairly close to this mural. I think the main reason TPTB around here want it gone is because it's easily visible from a major freeway junction (Interstate 55 at Interstate 44). Too many eyeballs are seeing it, and getting the idea that there is eminent domain abuse.
"The redevelopment authority was the first to take issue with the mural, saying it ran afoul of the city's blight ordinance."
well, as they condemned it for being blighted anyway, putting up a sign that's indicative of blight AFTERWARDS shouldn't be a problem.
Post a Comment