F07, have the mayor signs been removed? [FP]
Forest Park Code:
Are the mayoral campaigns and their supporters complying with the law?
8-6-5, B 3:
3. Election Signs: Such signs shall be located entirely on private property pursuant to the owner's consent, shall be permitted no more than thirty (30) days prior to an election, and shall be removed within two (2) days after that election. Unless such sign includes on its face the name of the person or organization responsible for such sign, the owner of the private property on which such sign is located shall be deemed
responsible for such sign.
Are the mayoral campaigns and their supporters complying with the law?
Labels: election law, Forest Park
posted by Carl Nyberg at
12:43 PM
11 Comments:
I've heard all Doolin & Steinbach signs are down. The only one not complying with the law is incumbent Tony "pay for play" Calderone.
Good job Doolin & Steinbach.
Tony...tsk...tsk...tsk....always leaving people shaking their heads and wondering WHY? Why do such unethical or illegal things especially when they're so obvious to the public.
VOTE STEINBACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By
Anonymous, at 7:12 PM, March 02, 2007
Why hasn't someone rounded up a posse? How could this man be so evil as to leave his signs up past the time in the ordinance? The horror of it all!
By
Anonymous, at 10:15 PM, March 02, 2007
Saw several Steinbach signs up still today tsk tsk tsk shame on her too. She is playing the stupid game also.
Vote Calderone 2007
By
Anonymous, at 1:48 AM, March 04, 2007
Hey Carl, what is your position on those anti-village parking signs in FP? Do they violate the law?
By
Anonymous, at 2:36 AM, March 04, 2007
Since the signs opposing destroying homes for parking lots do not express a position on the election it seems hard to argue they are "election signs".
However, you are free to complain to the village. My opinion on this issue doesn't translate to anything official.
Where are the Steinbach signs that haven't been taken down?
By
Carl Nyberg, at 11:13 AM, March 04, 2007
Actually, the signs about the parking proposals are allowed. Call this a quirk or inconsistent, but "political message" signs are allowed at any time, provided they are 2'x2' or smaller. It's probably to stay within the 1st amendment. It's only signs for or against a specific candidate subject to the ordinance.
By
Anonymous, at 10:51 PM, March 04, 2007
Carl, read the code. Those signs are restricted in the village code, but the village doesn't enforce it.
By
Anonymous, at 4:19 AM, March 05, 2007
kp, you're only reading part of the restriction - it also says those signs can't be in the front yard. so they are illegal, unless they get put in windows.
By
Anonymous, at 10:06 AM, March 05, 2007
If the village were challenged on First Amendment grounds would it automatically prevail?
Creating a uniform set of rules for campaigns is probably supported by the courts.
Arbitrarily regulating political speech by one side of an issue would probably be viewed skeptically by the courts.
By
Carl Nyberg, at 10:29 AM, March 05, 2007
carl, as usual you display your gross ignorance of the constitution. the reason the village would not prevail is because it more heavily restricts one form of political expression (support of a candidate) than it does other political speech (anti-parking signs). both are afforded the same strict level of constitional protection. but they are treated differently in the ordinance, so the campaign signs actually should be allowed to stay up indefinitely, or should only be allowed in windows. please carl, stop pretending to be some constitutional scholar or civil libertarian, or even someone who is interested in fairness. your blog clearly show you would support the first amendment only for those you agree with. very disappointing.
By
Anonymous, at 10:37 AM, March 05, 2007
Carl likes to rewrite rules and use half truths. Like having his record expunged.
By
Anonymous, at 6:08 PM, March 06, 2007
Post a Comment
<< Home