|
Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: RecycleMichael on August 01, 2007, 05:18:14 pm Someone tell that bozo to stop putting out illegal signs.
It has nothing to do with my views on the proposal...I would say the same thing to someone putting out yes signs. This guy is breaking the law and making my city ugly. He has no right. I am not surprised that his last name is Hicks. He is one. Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: Friendly Bear on August 01, 2007, 05:38:31 pm quote: Forget the First Amendment? Remember the concept of Free Speech? Not surprised. You've been drinking the Kool-Aid for a long-time in the Banana Republic of Tulsa. Of course, the unconstitutional city ordinance against sign placement in the city's so-called right of way, promoted by former Mayor Silly Susan Savage after two stinging defeats by Grassroots Vote NO organizations to an ARENA TAX, we know will have ABSOLUTELY no effect on a certain bank having Vote Yes for Kaiser River Tax signs implanted in EVERY Employee's Residential Yard in the environs of Tulsa County. Unless the employee takes their own career Suicide Pill and 'Opts-Out. Oh, and speaking of Ugly, why really BOTHER with those small, pesky little Political Ad signs or Commercial signs, when you have all those GREAT BIG POWER LINE POLES all over town to BEAUTIFY?? Why do you think it is PUBLIC POLICY that the Electric Futility Company gets to leave it huge eyesore electric poles ABOVE ground when the utilities are Re-located for street widening? Hmmmmh??? Try gazing down beautiful, newly widened 71st - 81st on Yale Avenue. There's a veritable Redwood Forest of massive electrical lines & poles. Big 'uns. And, they are not DESIGNER poles. All of which could have been buried. Such a public policy, besides adding BEAUTIFICATION, would also HARDEN the electrical transmission infrastructure to make power outages due to wind and ice storms, much less frequent. Yes, PSO/AEP has been continued this folly for GENERATIONS. Wonder why we let them get by with it?? Tulsa as America's most Beautiful City? Not in our lifetime. Tulsa as a Banana Republic? Brought to you for the past 50 years by the Ruling Power Oligarchy, who just like things the way they are......... [:P] Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: RecycleMichael on August 01, 2007, 06:22:45 pm Friendy Bear...
It is not a free speech issue. He has the right to verbally say anything he wants or follow the rules for signage. He is putting signs in the public right-of-way on riverside drive. He is breaking the law. This has nothing to do with your claims about vision 2025 signs three years ago. Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: Steve on August 01, 2007, 08:40:17 pm Where do we get these "no river tax" signs? I would be glad to display multiple "no tax" signs in my front yard, set back from the curb at least 12 feet, of course.
Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: Friendly Bear on August 02, 2007, 06:42:35 am quote: You might check the Tulsa phone directory under: Dan Hicks Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: sgrizzle on August 02, 2007, 07:32:05 am I want to get some "Vote NO on whatever" signs.
Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: cannon_fodder on August 02, 2007, 07:34:49 am The public right of way is not set up nor intended to be a "public forum." As such, it receives minimal protection for freedom of speech. Add to that the safety argument, "signs are distracting on the right of way and may detract from road signs" and the ban is pretty much golden.
The first amendment does not give you the right to place whatever sign you wish, including political signs, on any public property you deem fit. If the city allowed some signs, but not your view - you would have an argument. As it stands, you do not. Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: Townsend on August 02, 2007, 07:51:21 am I consider Hicks a turd sandwich. Free speech or slander?
He should be put in an orange vest and made to clean up the city parks for being a local embarrassment about the zoo thing, that butt munch. Slander? Stop the signs you hole. Slander? (Edit) Is it lible in print? Is he famous enough? Either way he's a whale eye. Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: rwarn17588 on August 02, 2007, 11:37:25 am Hicks started to lose me on the zoo-evolution spat, then lost me completely on his convoluted logic that annexing the fairgrounds was a tax increase.
It's not his political stances that offend me. It's his being an idiot that offends me. Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: shadows on August 02, 2007, 04:10:24 pm Yes; stop the Illegal signs that are being used by small groups that have no buddy boy jobs to sell for contributions to an opposing view. It truly is an infringement on those rights that are reserved by the city’s governing body, who’s duty is to stand guard over their own turf.
A year in jail with a $500 dollar fine should be assessed for this invasion on the reserved rights of city hall for any one caught with a sign that would show intent to place it on the right-a-ways. Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: DM on August 02, 2007, 05:16:19 pm But the city is working so hard to mow the lawns for those signs. Oh, wait or was that for the PGA.
Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: TheArtist on August 02, 2007, 10:01:01 pm Yea. Just when you actually start wishing the grass were taller. [:P]
Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: Sangria on August 03, 2007, 12:14:48 pm Signs on the right of way are illegal. Yet ALL the people running for office put signs there - including Kathy Taylor.
SO, they need to either be illegal all the time and for everyone one - or left alone. Next, anexation of the Fairgrounds. No, it would not raise property taxes - only increase the sales tax on that property. Under the county you only have to pay county tax at the fairgrounds. Once the City of tulsa takes it over you then have to pay all the sales tax. This makes it less desirable for those who have more choices of where to hold their events. Which means less money brought in and eventually either a property or sales tax to pay for up keep on the fairgrounds. Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: RecycleMichael on August 03, 2007, 01:04:21 pm The signs in the right-of-way are illegal all year round.
There are special rules for signs not in the right-of-way during election cycles. They are allowed on private property 45 days before an election. That is the last week of August for this election. Mayor Taylor was one of only two persons running for office that I ever heard specifically instructing her volunteers to only put signs in legal locations. This no tax sign guy clearly knows the rules and is purposely breaking the law. I hope that his signs are removed and he be made an example of. The ordinances call for monetary fines of a hundred dollars a day. Here is the language from Title 27 chapter 13... CHAPTER 13 STREET ADVERTISING Section 1300. Advertising Methods Prohibited. Section 1301. Penalty. SECTION 1300. ADVERTISING METHODS PROHIBITED It shall be an offense for any person to employ or allow the employment of any advertising matter, pictures, handbills or anything of similar nature for any purpose, by any of the following methods: A. By throwing, dropping or placing them on streets, sidewalks or alleys; B. By nailing, tacking, pasting or otherwise attaching them, without the owner's consent, to any post or pole, private or public building, improvement on any premises, street, sidewalk, or billboard; C. By placing, throwing or pasting them, without the owner's consent, on the windshield or other part of any motor vehicle; or on walls, windows or other parts of any private property; or D. By suspending them on, over or across any street, avenue or alley. SECTION 1301. PENALTY Unless otherwise provided for in this chapter, any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of an offense and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of not more than ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00), excluding costs, fees and assessments. Each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense. Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: Friendly Bear on August 03, 2007, 01:51:33 pm quote: For all you Legal Eagles, here's a sincere LEGAL question: Is a political message an ADVERTISEMENT?? Is a First Amendment FREE SPEECH Opinion or Expression of belief written on a small sign, like NO RIVER TAX, or Vote YES Kaiser River TAx, an advertisement? No, it is an EXPRESSION of BELIEF, or OPINION. Protected by the First Amendment. Oh, and commercially-speaking, do you think that REALTOR and Homebuilder Signs, or Roofing and Painting Company signs stuck in the residential yards in the alleged UNIFORM 12' foot from the curb = City RIGHT-of-WAY will also be subject to a Fine?? Might make GTAR break a nail. Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: Friendly Bear on August 03, 2007, 01:54:05 pm quote: Would Flying a Kite with a NO RIVER TAX sign over a high-power electric line, and then suspending said snared kite, be a violation of this ordinance? Better use cotton or nylon STRING for this gambit. Non-conductive filament! [}:)] Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: RecycleMichael on August 03, 2007, 02:41:14 pm No stuffed Bear.
The reputable realtors are in most cases supportive and in compliance with the sign code. An occasional individual agent may put signs in the wrong spot, but the vast majority of realtor signs are legally placed. Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: Friendly Bear on August 03, 2007, 05:43:39 pm quote: As a state-licensed professional, it defies logic that there could be any UNREPUTABLE Realtors. Everyone's seen thousands of Realtor For Sale signs placed within INCHES of the curb, just barely in the residential "yard". The Realtor wants MAXIMUM visibility. The Achilles Heel on why this ordinance may not be vetted on constitutional grounds is the simple reason that no REASONABLE homeowner could reliably predict exactly where the city's Right-of-Way ends, and their actual property line begins. Unless they hire a Site Survey, and plant a stake EXACTLY where this spot begins, and then paint a bright line on the grass. But then, the Sign Gestapo who meanders by to enforce the Ordinance lacks any clue on a house-by-house basis exactly where the City Right-of-Way begins and ends, anyway. Right? UNIFORM 12' feet set-back from Curb, my aching back! And, because of that degree of imprecision, with citizen compliance practically impossible, and city enforcement too judgmental and entirely too vague, the Ordinance is prima facie: Unenforceable and therefore, illegal and mute. End of Case. [:I] Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: Sangria on August 04, 2007, 11:22:33 am i realize it is illegal to have the signs on the right of way - WE ALL KNOW THAT.
My point is, when it is election time those signs are all over the right of ways - including Kathy Taylor signs. They all did. Not 12' off the line - they were next to the street. So, like I said - if they are going to be illegal then enforce it all the time, with everyone equally or don't do anything at all. If people against something can't use the right of ways then neither should the polititions who NEVER pick up their damn signs. Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: RecycleMichael on August 04, 2007, 11:44:43 am I appreciate your thoughts, Sangria.
We need more consistent enforcement of the sign rules, especially during elections. Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: booWorld on August 04, 2007, 03:48:06 pm From time to time, I find a sign placed in the right-of-way adjacent to my property. I promptly remove each sign I notice, bend it and/or tear it so it can't be used again, then place it in a trash bin so it can be trucked off to the landfill or trash-to-energy facility or wherever. Some of my neighbors never seem to learn -- they continue to put signs by my house.
The signs don't bother me very much. I haven't seen any "No River Tax" signs recently. I saw many of them when The Channels was in the news. "Stop the Chop" signs seem to be more prevalent in my area. Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: shadows on August 06, 2007, 05:04:07 pm quote: Its all in free speech restricted to everyone’s interpretation. I would recall when the city placed a 4x8 foot sign in a park promoting a new tax proposition and a guy by the name of Quinn and others took a chain saw and sawed the 4x4 post letting the sign fall on the ground. Their comment was that a city public park was not a proper place to post political signs. Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: tim huntzinger on August 06, 2007, 05:13:35 pm I want to get big 'M's and replace the 'N's.
What a waste of time and money. I thought his comment at the Expo meeting about the brownwater on the river was incredibly stupid. Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: sauerkraut on August 09, 2007, 10:12:42 am Oh hum-- It's just a sign of the times I guess.[}:)]
Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: YoungTulsan on August 09, 2007, 10:15:26 am quote: Or you could just paint a comma on the signs "No, River Tax!" Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: sgrizzle on August 09, 2007, 10:31:47 am quote: Print up stickers with the letter "g" on them.. Go River Tax! Title: "No river tax "signs Post by: iplaw on August 09, 2007, 10:40:38 am quote:Well...that about does that ordinance in, but I believe the ordinance wouldn't classify as "moot" but rather impermissibly vauge or arbitrary and caprecious. |