A grassroots organization focused on the intelligent and sustainable development, preservation and revitalization of Tulsa.
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2017, 05:52:51 pm
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "No river tax "signs  (Read 5296 times)
Friendly Bear
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2021



« Reply #15 on: August 03, 2007, 01:54:05 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

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.



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!

[}:)]
Logged
RecycleMichael
truth teller
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 12861


« Reply #16 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.
Logged

Power is nothing till you use it.
Friendly Bear
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2021



« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2007, 05:43:39 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

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.



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]
Logged
Sangria
Guest
« Reply #18 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.
Logged
RecycleMichael
truth teller
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 12861


« Reply #19 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.
Logged

Power is nothing till you use it.
booWorld
Guest
« Reply #20 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.
Logged
shadows
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2136



« Reply #21 on: August 06, 2007, 05:04:07 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder

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.



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.
Logged

Today we stand in ecstasy and view that we build today’
Tomorrow we will enter into the plea to have it torn away.
tim huntzinger
Guest
« Reply #22 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.
Logged
sauerkraut
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3215


I Conquered The 2013 -2015 Polar Bear Plunge!!


« Reply #23 on: August 09, 2007, 10:12:42 am »

Oh hum-- It's just a sign of the times I guess.[}:)]
Logged

Proud Global  Warming Deiner! Earth Is Getting Colder NOT Warmer!
YoungTulsan
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1349


WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 09, 2007, 10:15:26 am »

quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger

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.



Or you could just paint a comma on the signs

"No, River Tax!"
Logged

 
sgrizzle
Kung Fu Treachery
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 15989


Inconceivable!


WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2007, 10:31:47 am »

quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger

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.



Or you could just paint a comma on the signs

"No, River Tax!"



Print up stickers with the letter "g" on them..

Go River Tax!
Logged
iplaw
Guest
« Reply #26 on: August 09, 2007, 10:40:38 am »

quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael

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.



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]

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

 
  Hosted by TulsaConnect and Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
 

Mission

 

"TulsaNow's Mission is to help Tulsa become the most vibrant, diverse, sustainable and prosperous city of our size. We achieve this by focusing on the development of Tulsa's distinctive identity and economic growth around a dynamic, urban core, complemented by a constellation of livable, thriving communities."
more...

 

Contact

 

2210 S Main St.
Tulsa, OK 74114
(918) 409-2669
info@tulsanow.org