Friendly Bear paid me a nice compliment over in another thread that got side-tracked talking about Tulsa's sign laws during this political season. See below and at http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7596&whichpage=5. He asked me to weigh in on the issue.
I thought it needed its on special thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
If it's an unconstitutional ordinance, why don't you call the ACLU or a civil-rights lawyer?
If you're that bothered by it, act instead of complain.
There are at least two active lawyers responding on this Topic.
Cannon Fodder apparently does not think the ordinance is Unconstitutional.
Don't know what Bledsoe thinks about the sign ordinance.
Bledsoe could be the right man for the job. .
Apparently, he's got some considerable backbone and tenacity, considering his involvement in getting the DISCRIMINATORY form of city government changed in 1989, tearing the city a new one in the process.
As I understand it, he was more recently a leader of a group fighting to keep the Strong Mayor/City Council organization from being changed into the At-Large Councilor evil machinations of the Lorton's World.
Maybe he'll opine....
Calling Mr. Bledsoe. The citizens of Tulsa need your guts and brains again.
Here is what I think about signs in Tulsa:
1. Removal of commercial signs in city ROW (medians & inside the normal 12' line along arterial streets) should be the top enforcement priority. This is the equivalent of litter and trash;
2. Next, removal of commercial signs in residential areas;
3. Next removal of "illegal" signs in residential and office areas--this includes political and real estate signs larger than 16 sq. ft.;
4. Next removal of political signs on city ROW, including the normal 12', along arterial streets.
There is absolutely no constitutional problem with banning political signs from city property and ROW. There is a great need to put the penalty on the person, business or politician who places the sign illegally rather than just on the property owner. There is room for improvement here.
As far as I can tell the Tulsa zoning code and other city laws correctly authorize these practices except for the need to fine the person placing the sign. There is no constitutional problem. I support Recycle Michael and all his helpers in these areas.
Now there are some constitutional problems.
1. Limiting political signs in residential and office areas to not more than 45 days before an election to 7 days after an election---I think such a ban probably violates free speech, especially as it relates to how early the political season starts these days. I do support the size limit of 16 sq.ft.--no more super-sized political signs in residential and office areas. Size limits but not time limits are legal.
2. Banning all political signs in residential and office areas unless they relate to an election. This bans signs like "Stop the Chop",
"Stop the Box" & "Preserve Mid-Town.Com." I think this rule has serious free speech issues. As far as I know there has been no official effort to enforce this rule.
Government can reasonably regulate speech (including political & commercial speech) in its time, place and manner, but totally banning issue speech like "Stop the Chop" in residential areas probably goes too far.
3. Another free speech/discrimination issue has also been raised by Friendly Bear and that is his claim that government and its agents might be removing Vote No signs and not removing Yes signs from public ROW. If this can be proven it would be a violation of the 1st Amendment and Equal Protection.
Now let us all talk among ourselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Bledsoe
Here is what I think about signs in Tulsa:
1. Removal of commercial signs in city ROW (medians & inside the normal 12' line along arterial streets) should be the top enforcement priority. This is the equivalent of litter and trash;
2. Next, removal of commercial signs in residential areas;
3. Next removal of "illegal" signs in residential and office areas--this includes political and real estate signs larger than 16 sq. ft.;
4. Next removal of political signs on city ROW, including the normal 12', along arterial streets.
There is absolutely no constitutional problem with banning political signs from city property and ROW. There is a great need to put the penalty on the person, business or politician who places the sign illegally rather than just on the property owner. There is room for improvement here.
As far as I can tell the Tulsa zoning code and other city laws correctly authorize these practices except for the need to fine the person placing the sign. There is no constitutional problem. I support Recycle Michael and all his helpers in these areas.
Now there are some constitutional problems.
1. Limiting political signs in residential and office areas to not more than 45 days before an election to 7 days after an election---I think such a ban probably violates free speech, especially as it relates to how early the political season starts these days. I do support the size limit of 16 sq.ft.--no more super-sized political signs in residential and office areas. Size limits but not time limits are legal.
2. Banning all political signs in residential and office areas unless they relate to an election. This bans signs like "Stop the Chop",
"Stop the Box" & "Preserve Mid-Town.Com." I think this rule has serious free speech issues. As far as I know there has been no official effort to enforce this rule.
Government can reasonably regulate speech (including political & commercial speech) in its time, place and manner, but totally banning issue speech like "Stop the Chop" in residential areas probably goes too far.
3. Another free speech/discrimination issue has also been raised by Friendly Bear and that is his claim that government and its agents might be removing Vote No signs and not removing Yes signs from public ROW. If this can be proven it would be a violation of the 1st Amendment and Equal Protection.
Now let us all talk among ourselves.
Thank you for opining, Bledsoe.
You've already provided a link to my opinion, in your introduction.
I would just add, that overall I think that the ordinance AND the enforcement is merely a pretext by the local governing Elite to stifle the expression of opinion in one of the few mediums (no pun intended) that they can afford.
It causes a rather DISPARATE IMPACT on a small, unfunded grass roots Dis-Organization like the Vote No group, vs. absolutely NO IMPACT on the $1,000,000's of dollars funding the Cabal of Vote YES Tax Vampires. NONE.
They already have wall-to-wall TV ads, radio ads, newspaper ads, newspaper "news" and Op-Ed in the Lorton's World, multiple mailings of multi-color litho direct mail, hired phone banks, push-polls, and every other campaign technique available to a super well-funded organization that wants to set public policy FOR THE PURPOSE OF PICKING IT CLEAN TO LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS.
Additionally, there are absolutely no individual Vote YES campaign funding raising limits. NONE.
It is a totally rigged game.
So, from the standpoint of those in the local ruling elite who NEED to FEED their GREED, they just must have their ordinance.
That's my $0.002 worth.
[:O]
Originally posted by Friendly Bear.
quote:
They already have wall-to-wall TV ads, radio ads, newspaper ads, newspaper "news" and Op-Ed in the Lorton's World, multiple mailings of multi-color litho direct mail, hired phone banks, push-polls, and every other campaign technique available to a super well-funded organization that wants to set public policy FOR THE PURPOSE OF PICKING IT CLEAN TO LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS.
FB I am glad you made this statement...
If I am reading the ballot for the "River Tax" correctly....
If the Vote Yes folks win...?
We stand to be responsible for the monies spent on the above mentioned Campaign Extravaganza...
Correct...?
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Originally posted by Friendly Bear.quote:
They already have wall-to-wall TV ads, radio ads, newspaper ads, newspaper "news" and Op-Ed in the Lorton's World, multiple mailings of multi-color litho direct mail, hired phone banks, push-polls, and every other campaign technique available to a super well-funded organization that wants to set public policy FOR THE PURPOSE OF PICKING IT CLEAN TO LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS.
FB I am glad you made this statement...
If I am reading the ballot for the "River Tax" correctly....
If the Vote Yes folks win...?
We stand to be responsible for the monies spent on the above mentioned Campaign Extravaganza...
Correct...?
The way the ballot is written, you'd be correct.
Of course, it has to be a County cost, so it'd be passed as a subcontract of some kind for reimbursement to those who actually put up the original funding.
Then again, maybe, if passed, the County would renig on that, too, claiming they got what they bought, and keep it for themselves.
"Win-Win"
FWIW, every ballot that I can remember had this very provision. It needs to be removed or reworded to limit. But, no one ever asks us what the actual ballot is going to say.
They always go for least restrictive, and a blank check is pretty much the Holy Graile for them.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Originally posted by Friendly Bear.quote:
They already have wall-to-wall TV ads, radio ads, newspaper ads, newspaper "news" and Op-Ed in the Lorton's World, multiple mailings of multi-color litho direct mail, hired phone banks, push-polls, and every other campaign technique available to a super well-funded organization that wants to set public policy FOR THE PURPOSE OF PICKING IT CLEAN TO LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS.
FB I am glad you made this statement...
If I am reading the ballot for the "River Tax" correctly....
If the Vote Yes folks win...?
We stand to be responsible for the monies spent on the above mentioned Campaign Extravaganza...
Correct...?
On October 9th, if the Tulsa COUNTY Election Board reports that the Kaiser County River Tax passed, then you will see a veritable FEEDING FRENZY of the Tax Vampires devouring buckets of blood......
New TAXES! $282 million in fresh tax blood.
[:(]
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Originally posted by Friendly Bear.quote:
They already have wall-to-wall TV ads, radio ads, newspaper ads, newspaper "news" and Op-Ed in the Lorton's World, multiple mailings of multi-color litho direct mail, hired phone banks, push-polls, and every other campaign technique available to a super well-funded organization that wants to set public policy FOR THE PURPOSE OF PICKING IT CLEAN TO LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS.
FB I am glad you made this statement...
If I am reading the ballot for the "River Tax" correctly....
If the Vote Yes folks win...?
We stand to be responsible for the monies spent on the above mentioned Campaign Extravaganza...
Correct...?
The local controlling Elite here absolutely do not need yard-sized campaign signs to get their message out to the public.
But, the yard signs are really the only affordable advertising medium available to the unfunded Vote NO Dis-Organization.
The Vote Yes cabal besides the aforementioned mass media and direct mail outlets, also has the not-so-subtle leverage with over Channels 862 that with hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars available for TV spots, they naturally cow the negative reporting possibilities against the River Tax.
And, accentuate the POSITIVE of the proposed tax.
And Cocks Cable, those slime-bags, donated free airtime for the Vote Yes ads.
$56,000 in donated
IN-KIND contributions by Cocks. It's in the expenditure reports.
Cancel my Cocks cable service, please.
Hello, Direct TV Satellite Dish.
[:O]
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p315/TYProle/1358884923_m.gif)
We need clean elections (//%22http://www.publicampaign.org/node/34047%22) to clean up Tulsa government (//%22http://www.publicampaign.org/pressroom/2005/05/19/voter-owned-elections-becomes-law-in-portland-oregon%22) and give power back to the people instead of the private special interests. This is how we will become a progressive city, not by allowing ourselves to be held hostage by the regressive influence, oppression, and dominance of private special interests. Wouldn't you agree, Bledsoe?
To get back on the topic of signs, I agree with most of your comments, Bledsoe, but would add a couple of points. First, I would discourage the city from removing any political signs in ROW abutting private houses. Most homeowners don't know what part of their yard is in the ROW (some may not even know there is a ROW). When anyone starts taking signs out of someone's yard, it will just lead to trouble. Unless it is blocking visibility, it should be left alone.
I initially thought the time frame restriction for campaign signs & the limit of campaign affiliation was a bad ordinance. But the more I think about it, the more I believe it is necessary. After all, without some restriction, people may place signs up and leave them--perhaps for years. While there is restrictions on square footage, there is no restriction on total number of signs in our current ordinance. Some might cover their entire yard with signs, and leave them till they fall down. And if you don't tie the sign to an election, your opening the door for signs that border on obscene. You will be forced to rule between those with political content, those with commercial, and those just downright obscene. I don't have a problem with the stop the chop or preservemidtown signs. On the other hand, I can certainly imagine other types of signs that would bother me. I don't want the city picking and choosing which signs are inappropriate. By banning signs altogether, except for those directly affiliated with an election, the city removes itself from having to judge the content of signs.
PM points out some problems with the current political sign law, but suggests they must be related to elections to have some limits.
This imposes a total ban on political speech unrelated to an election--such as Stop the Chop, Preservemidtown and Stop the Box. PM suggests that linking the sign law to elections "removes the City from having to judge the content of signs." But this law bans a whole class of political speech.
I suggest that cannot be constitutional. I don't think it is a reasonable regulation of time place or manner. I would certainly favor a limit on the number and size of all political signs in a residential zone and a regulation on their upkeep (no melting or decaying signs) , but I draw the line at a total ban on non-commercial speech.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p315/TYProle/1358884923_m.gif)
We need clean elections (//%22http://www.publicampaign.org/node/34047%22) to clean up Tulsa government (//%22http://www.publicampaign.org/pressroom/2005/05/19/voter-owned-elections-becomes-law-in-portland-oregon%22) and give power back to the people instead of the private special interests. This is how we will become a progressive city, not by allowing ourselves to be held hostage by the regressive influence, oppression, and dominance of private special interests. Wouldn't you agree, Bledsoe?
I certainly agree we need the public financing plan suggested by this link. It would be a great thing and would promote clean government.
The plan adopted in Portland, Arizona and several other jurisdictions appear to be limited to election of candidates to public office rather than tax proposals or other non-candidate elections. Double A are there other proposals for these kinds of elections?
As long as the US Supreme Court considers the ability to spend your own money in support of your own political opinion an element of free speech
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
Buckley v. Valeo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia),
then I think those who have funds and are willing to spend their money in support of their speech will always have an advantage.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Quote
I would just add, that overall I think that the ordinance AND the enforcement is merely a pretext by the local governing Elite to stifle the expression of opinion in one of the few mediums (no pun intended) that they can afford.
It causes a rather DISPARATE IMPACT on a small, unfunded grass roots Dis-Organization like the Vote No group, vs. absolutely NO IMPACT on the $1,000,000's of dollars funding the Cabal of Vote YES Tax Vampires. NONE.
They already have wall-to-wall TV ads, radio ads, newspaper ads, newspaper "news" and Op-Ed in the Lorton's World, multiple mailings of multi-color litho direct mail, hired phone banks, push-polls, and every other campaign technique available to a super well-funded organization that wants to set public policy FOR THE PURPOSE OF PICKING IT CLEAN TO LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS.
Additionally, there are absolutely no individual Vote YES campaign funding raising limits. NONE.
It is a totally rigged game.
So, from the standpoint of those in the local ruling elite who NEED to FEED their GREED, they just must have their ordinance.
That's my $0.002 worth.
[:O]
It seems to me the devil is in the details.
I think Recycle Michael and other sign pollution advocates are to be commended. Their primary gripe and attack has been on the large number of commercial signs along city arterial streets and medians--tanning salons, roofing companies, lawn services, etc. This had become a serious quality of life issue for me.
Do you really have evidence that the city or the sign task force are now primarily targeting political signs rather than their ordinary work on commercial litter type signs?
During the last several elections (and most past elections) most if not all incumbent office holders campaigns placed their signs on public property--in effect littering the streets, IMHO. I know this was true for Randi Miller and former Mayor LaFortune, as well as most judicial candidates. I guess they felt that since everybody else does it--they must too--or be out signed by the other side.
One bad act does not deserve another. I long for the day when a candidate for public office ( or VOTE Yes/No groups) will pledge to abide by all sign laws and challenge others to do the same.
Until then, the guidelines I listed in my original proposal should be followed in that order. The sign laws and the new attitude for enforcement should not be used as a pretext to favor one political group over another. On the other hand, some message must be sent to all that there is a real sign litter problem.
Littering our streets in the name of economical free speech is not the way I would go, especially in the age of the internet and blogs like this.
quote:
Originally posted by Bledsoe
PM points out some problems with the current political sign law, but suggests they must be related to elections to have some limits.
This imposes a total ban on political speech unrelated to an election--such as Stop the Chop, Preservemidtown and Stop the Box. PM suggests that linking the sign law to elections "removes the City from having to judge the content of signs." But this law bans a whole class of political speech.
I suggest that cannot be constitutional. I don't think it is a reasonable regulation of time place or manner. I would certainly favor a limit on the number and size of all political signs in a residential zone and a regulation on their upkeep (no melting or decaying signs) , but I draw the line at a total ban on non-commercial speech.
While limiting the number of signs might help, I would be concerned about an objective standard for determining "decaying" signs. I could see it being abused.
I am not saying it is the best approach, but I don't think the current ordinance is unconstitutional. I think it could be defended as a neutral time restriction. And I don't know that it prohibits an entire class of political speech. Like so many other problems with our zoning code, political campaign sign is not defined. And the ordinance clearly does not restrict the types of signs allowed to those directly related to the election at hand. Most would agree that a political sign does not have to be related to a person, but can be related to a political position as well. Technically, I believe you could put up Stop the Chop or PreserveMidtown signs 45 days before
any election (Oct. 9th included).
As for allowing any non-commercial speech at any time, wouldn't you also have to allow commercial as well? How would you distinguish? For example, there is a sign around 36th & Harvard--some guy attacking the contractor who built his house. Is that political, commercial or neither? What about a political sign sponsored by a company? And again what about offense signs? And religious signs? How could you prevent those, once you allow all signs?
I also worry that if the city allows too many signs, it will loose the ability to regulate signage in residential areas at all. The city has a legitimate interest in eliminating visual clutter. But if everyone is already allowed a sign in their yard, why couldn't they be allowed two or three?
quote:
Originally posted by Bledsoe
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Quote
I would just add, that overall I think that the ordinance AND the enforcement is merely a pretext by the local governing Elite to stifle the expression of opinion in one of the few mediums (no pun intended) that they can afford.
It causes a rather DISPARATE IMPACT on a small, unfunded grass roots Dis-Organization like the Vote No group, vs. absolutely NO IMPACT on the $1,000,000's of dollars funding the Cabal of Vote YES Tax Vampires. NONE.
They already have wall-to-wall TV ads, radio ads, newspaper ads, newspaper "news" and Op-Ed in the Lorton's World, multiple mailings of multi-color litho direct mail, hired phone banks, push-polls, and every other campaign technique available to a super well-funded organization that wants to set public policy FOR THE PURPOSE OF PICKING IT CLEAN TO LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS.
Additionally, there are absolutely no individual Vote YES campaign funding raising limits. NONE.
It is a totally rigged game.
So, from the standpoint of those in the local ruling elite who NEED to FEED their GREED, they just must have their ordinance.
That's my $0.002 worth.
[:O]
It seems to me the devil is in the details.
I think Recycle Michael and other sign pollution advocates are to be commended. Their primary gripe and attack has been on the large number of commercial signs along city arterial streets and medians--tanning salons, roofing companies, lawn services, etc. This had become a serious quality of life issue for me.
Do you really have evidence that the city or the sign task force are now primarily targeting political signs rather than their ordinary work on commercial litter type signs?
During the last several elections (and most past elections) most if not all incumbent office holders campaigns placed their signs on public property--in effect littering the streets, IMHO. I know this was true for Randi Miller and former Mayor LaFortune, as well as most judicial candidates. I guess they felt that since everybody else does it--they must too--or be out signed by the other side.
One bad act does not deserve another. I long for the day when a candidate for public office ( or VOTE Yes/No groups) will pledge to abide by all sign laws and challenge others to do the same.
Until then, the guidelines I listed in my original proposal should be followed in that order. The sign laws and the new attitude for enforcement should not be used as a pretext to favor one political group over another. On the other hand, some message must be sent to all that there is a real sign litter problem.
Littering our streets in the name of economical free speech is not the way I would go, especially in the age of the internet and blogs like this.
Recycle's Sign Gestapo vacumn ALL signs along the so-called city Right-of-Way.
Campaigns sign included.
Which has ABSOLUTELY no effect on the Vote YES Cabal that has already raised $1.3 million to cram another sales tax increase down our throats.
They are being GIVEN free air time by Cocks Cable. $56,000 worth so far.
They have $100,000's to spend on direct mail, TV, and Radio advertising.
They don't NEED any signs.
Again, the sign ordinance causes a DISPARATE IMPACT on tiny, unfunded grass roots political organizations.
It silences them.
If the fairness doctrine were in effect, would an equal amount of free air time have to be granted to the No River Tax side?
Oh, friendless bear...
Playing the "us po folk don't got the same rights in elections" card is getting old.
Ask 100 citizens how many want to pay more taxes and about a hundred of them will say no. The no side starts with a big edge on all votes to raise taxes and the yes side has to spend money to inform and persuade folks to agree.
All the "no" people have to do is to argue that the project is flawed in either detail or timing. Add in a few politicians who pander to the anti-everything crowd and it becomes very difficult for any community to fund improvements.
It is ok to oppose this tax and any other tax. Many of my co-workers and friends plan to vote no. But please stop the pity act claiming that the table is slanted unfairly.
The "no" crowd has had signs in the commercial corridors for weeks. Go to any intersection in town and you can see their work. I can't wait till the election is over so we can cleanup our city without being accused of stifling free speech.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Bledsoe
PM points out some problems with the current political sign law, but suggests they must be related to elections to have some limits.
This imposes a total ban on political speech unrelated to an election--such as Stop the Chop, Preservemidtown and Stop the Box. PM suggests that linking the sign law to elections "removes the City from having to judge the content of signs." But this law bans a whole class of political speech.
I suggest that cannot be constitutional. I don't think it is a reasonable regulation of time place or manner. I would certainly favor a limit on the number and size of all political signs in a residential zone and a regulation on their upkeep (no melting or decaying signs) , but I draw the line at a total ban on non-commercial speech.
While limiting the number of signs might help, I would be concerned about an objective standard for determining "decaying" signs. I could see it being abused.
I am not saying it is the best approach, but I don't think the current ordinance is unconstitutional. I think it could be defended as a neutral time restriction. And I don't know that it prohibits an entire class of political speech. Like so many other problems with our zoning code, political campaign sign is not defined. And the ordinance clearly does not restrict the types of signs allowed to those directly related to the election at hand. Most would agree that a political sign does not have to be related to a person, but can be related to a political position as well. Technically, I believe you could put up Stop the Chop or PreserveMidtown signs 45 days before any election (Oct. 9th included).
As for allowing any non-commercial speech at any time, wouldn't you also have to allow commercial as well? How would you distinguish? For example, there is a sign around 36th & Harvard--some guy attacking the contractor who built his house. Is that political, commercial or neither? What about a political sign sponsored by a company? And again what about offense signs? And religious signs? How could you prevent those, once you allow all signs?
I also worry that if the city allows too many signs, it will loose the ability to regulate signage in residential areas at all. The city has a legitimate interest in eliminating visual clutter. But if everyone is already allowed a sign in their yard, why couldn't they be allowed two or three?
Here is a link to an example of the problem with the wording of the law from the City primary election in February of 2006:
http://www.tulsatopics.com/tulsatopics/2006/02/budding_campaign_billboards_1.html
PM raises good points, but I just believe the size and number of signs in residential zones are the key elements for limitation. Three or four small signs are a reasonable limit. I should not be able to have a sign larger than 16 sq.ft. Indeed, I would support a more restrictive size limit in residential areas.
I should not be allowed to have a political/issue huge sign farm covering my residential lawn. I think those are the types of sign laws that neighborhoods will tolerate and that most folks will comply with. The worst kind of law is that kind that no one obeys and cannot be practically enforced.
Regulating content (unless obviously commercial) and policing the time period that a sign can stay up and come down would not be practical and probably unconstitutional.
Here is a link to very comprehensive opinion from the City Attorney of Missoula, MT surveying the law in this area and adopting my view regarding "political" signs:
ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Documents/Attorney/Opinions/2002/192002.pdf
His conclusion:
"The physical characteristics of political signs such as its maximum size,
or its location so as not to block visibility of motorists on private property or
banning political signs on public property are examples of acceptable political
sign regulation. The United States Supreme Court in City of Ladue v. Gilleo
(1994) 512 U.S. 43, 114 S. Ct. 2038, 129 L. Ed 3d 36; 1994 U. S. Lexis 4448
unanimously indicated that residential "political, religious, or personal
message" signs were permitted constitutional free speech rights pursuant to
the First Amendment.
There are court cases that have held invalid local government restrictions
attempting to limit the number of temporary political signs to two (2) or the
time period when political signs are allowed to sixty (60) days."
Had a call from a citizen wanting to know where he could pick up a VOTE NO sign to put in his yard. Said he had a perfect location where much traffic had to go by. Can anyone help with this request?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Oh, friendless bear...
Playing the "us po folk don't got the same rights in elections" card is getting old.
Ask 100 citizens how many want to pay more taxes and about a hundred of them will say no. The no side starts with a big edge on all votes to raise taxes and the yes side has to spend money to inform and persuade folks to agree.
All the "no" people have to do is to argue that the project is flawed in either detail or timing. Add in a few politicians who pander to the anti-everything crowd and it becomes very difficult for any community to fund improvements.
It is ok to oppose this tax and any other tax. Many of my co-workers and friends plan to vote no. But please stop the pity act claiming that the table is slanted unfairly.
The "no" crowd has had signs in the commercial corridors for weeks. Go to any intersection in town and you can see their work. I can't wait till the election is over so we can cleanup our city without being accused of stifling free speech.
Anyone with the least bit of analytical ability can discern that so-called Non-Partisan elections concerning constitutional amendments, local sales, bond or School bond issues, and the like are an absolutely RIGGED contest.
There are NO LIMITS on how much can be raised and spent by a group advocating for the election issue, unlike in candidate campaigns.
NONE.
The Vote YES Cabal has already raised at least $1.3 million to cram another sales tax increase down our throats.
They are being GIVEN free air time by Cocks Cable. Over $50,000 worth as reported.
They have $100,000's to spend on direct mail, TV, and Radio advertising.
And, it is presumed that a large subset of the Vote YES Tax Vampires who are also Vote YES contributors will also be DIRECT BENEFICIARIES of the spending flowing from the new Kaiser River Tax.
Grumpy Bear - if they delivered what is promised and win an open bidding process, I do not care who benefits from it. May the best company win.
That said, you are advocating for "less rigged" elections by having the government regulate elections more. I hope you see the irony in that.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Grumpy Bear - if they delivered what is promised and win an open bidding process, I do not care who benefits from it. May the best company win.
That said, you are advocating for "less rigged" elections by having the government regulate elections more. I hope you see the irony in that.
In my own words, I would say that there definitely need to be reasonable individual campaign limits in non-partisan elections, just like we have in partisan candidate elections.
The reason there isn't is simple: Because it involves what really matters to the ruling Oklahoma Oligarch Families:
Raising ever more Tax Dollars, and then gaming the system every way possible to siphon off as much as humanly possible. Working for a living is too hard; they'd rather spend a $1 million promoting getting $300 million.
What a HANDSOME return on their investment!
Witness the Rooneys, Flint, Lortons and Kaiser financial interests, for starters. They received the lion's share of the Vision 2025 tax spending.
Anyone doubt they'll also have their snouts full into the Kaiser River Tax gravy??
For instance, the Tulsa County eschews competitive bidding in many respects. There was no competitive bidding on hiring a bond advisor. Former Tulsa Co. Commissioner Dirty Bob Dick's "dear" friend John Piercey was handed that financial plum.
There was NO competitive bidding on splitting the bond-underwriting gravy between F&M Bank and BOK, nor the bond trustee responsibilities.
Expect a repeat performance, in spades, of self-dealing Oligarchy Patronage if the Kaiser River Tax - Phase I passes.
[:O]
As I said before-----
$ = Free Speech.
If you believe in free speech then those that have $ get to speak without limitation, especially government limitation. This is not Burma.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
Buckley v. Valeo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I suppose you could design a system that would have public financing of issues like the River Tax--pro/con, but then you might have folks like Accountability Burns and Paul Tay getting public money--not that I don't agree with them more often than not.
quote:
Originally posted by Bledsoe
As I said before-----
$ = Free Speech.
If you believe in free speech then those that have $ get to speak without limitation, especially government limitation. This is not Burma.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
Buckley v. Valeo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I suppose you could design a system that would have public financing of issues like the River Tax--pro/con, but then you might have folks like Accountability Burns and Paul Tay getting public money--not that I don't agree with them more often than not.
Even if Paul Tay or Accountability Burns got money it would be a vast improvement over the broken system we have now.
quote:
Originally posted by Bledsoe
As I said before-----
$ = Free Speech.
If you believe in free speech then those that have $ get to speak without limitation, especially government limitation. This is not Burma.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
Buckley v. Valeo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I suppose you could design a system that would have public financing of issues like the River Tax--pro/con, but then you might have folks like Accountability Burns and Paul Tay getting public money--not that I don't agree with them more often than not.
Well, for some reason, there ARE campaign limits on what state and local candidates can raise from individual contributors. That fact does NOT seem to violate any free speech rights.
The problem of NO LIMITS on what can be spent on Tax Issues, is that the Tax Vampires, who fully expect to be the recipients of the tax largesse, have so MUCH free speech funded by their $millions that they simply DROWN OUT the free speech rights of anyone else.
Why? Because free speech isn't really without cost?
Oh, you can stand on the sidewalk and shout VOTE NO all day, and hold up a NO RIVER TAX sign until you arms fall off.
The Tax Vampires have wall-to-wall Mass Media buys, slickly constructed multi-color litho direct mail, telephone canvassers, Push-Polls, in-kind contributions provided by Cocks Cable TV, multiple ads on Channel 862, 24x7 radio spots, and newspaper "news" coordinated with Echo-Chamber Editorials daily in the
Lorton's World.The local controlling power Oligarch can boastfully say:
Ain't free speech great?[:O]
<FB wrote:
Oh, you can stand on the sidewalk and shout VOTE NO all day, and hold up a NO RIVER TAX sign until you arms fall off.
<end clip>
I would advise against that. No arms makes it difficult to eat, especially at formal dinners.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<FB wrote:
Oh, you can stand on the sidewalk and shout VOTE NO all day, and hold up a NO RIVER TAX sign until you arms fall off.
<end clip>
I would advise against that. No arms makes it difficult to eat, especially at formal dinners.
It's called a figurative expression, not a literal expression.
You must have been out stealing hubcaps again, when they covered figures-of-speech in Freshman English.
West Tulsa?
That's what is called an Oxymoron.
Nyuk-Nyuk-Nyuk.
[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<FB wrote:
Oh, you can stand on the sidewalk and shout VOTE NO all day, and hold up a NO RIVER TAX sign until you arms fall off.
<end clip>
I would advise against that. No arms makes it difficult to eat, especially at formal dinners.
It's called a figurative expression, not a literal expression.
You must have been out stealing hubcaps again, when they covered figures-of-speech in Freshman English.
West Tulsa?
That's what is called an Oxymoron.
Nyuk-Nyuk-Nyuk.
[:D]
Dammit, there goes another kitten.
I've actually been paying attention to signs lately... there are 2 times as many NO signs as YES signs it seems. I thought NO was an underfunded grass roots movement? Who is funding their campaign? Much is made about funding for YES but NO seems to have some funding as well.
Most YES yards have one sign. Most NO yards have 3 signs. I also have counted 1 YES sign on a median and a retarded number of NO signs. Not sure what that indicates.
AND... just for fun, a NO sign appeared on the edge of my lawn. I figure it was my neighbors and left it at that (it was technically partially in my lawn). Well, I was outside yesterday doing some work and he asked if I could move my sign since he was having company over and did not want to start a political debate with them. He thought it was mine, I thought it was his! NO idea where it came from, kinda funny though. Some poor NO person is no complaining that someone stole their sign.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I've actually been paying attention to signs lately... there are 2 times as many NO signs as YES signs it seems. I thought NO was an underfunded grass roots movement? Who is funding their campaign? Much is made about funding for YES but NO seems to have some funding as well.
Most YES yards have one sign. Most NO yards have 3 signs. I also have counted 1 YES sign on a median and a retarded number of NO signs. Not sure what that indicates.
AND... just for fun, a NO sign appeared on the edge of my lawn. I figure it was my neighbors and left it at that (it was technically partially in my lawn). Well, I was outside yesterday doing some work and he asked if I could move my sign since he was having company over and did not want to start a political debate with them. He thought it was mine, I thought it was his! NO idea where it came from, kinda funny though. Some poor NO person is no complaining that someone stole their sign.
I've driven through some neighborhoods without a single no and 40-50 yeses. It all varies by neighborhood.
On the other hand, I hear Ken Busby has TWO yes signs in his yard..
On my block there are four YES signs and four NO signs. I assume the others are MAYBE but the maybe campaign is the one that is really underfunded.
Two signs in a person's yard? Wow. That must really cloud his judgement.
I'm within half a block of a voting precinct, I'm printing out a "RIVER? Maybe!" sign tonight. Man, that's great.
In Jenks I have seen exactly one "no" sign in a yard. There are a ton of "yes" signs all over.
I have seen a number of cars with signs taped in the windows, all are "no" signs and usually the driver is yelling at their radio.
There are "no" signs in rights of way along with some "yes" signs. But lately big "no" signs have appeared stapled to the fences (usually old farmland fencing) of unimproved lots where no one lives and there are no businesses. These signs make it appear that the lot owner is for "no", but there are no buildings on these lots so I bet the owners have no idea the signs are there.
Somebody is paying for these signs. There's obviously money behind the "no" side. So where is the money coming from and why have they NOT filed a campaign finance report?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I'm within half a block of a voting precinct, I'm printing out a "RIVER? Maybe!" sign tonight. Man, that's great.
The MAYBE campaign is polling at 16% according to the Tulsa World. That is without spending a dime.
I was thinking of joining the "maybe" campaign. But I haven't decided yet.
The MAYBE campaign is going to meet with the Procrastinators Club, but they haven't set a meeting date yet.
I heard they were going to untie with dyslexics anonymous.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
a NO sign appeared on the edge of my lawn. I figure it was my neighbors and left it at that (it was technically partially in my lawn). Well, I was outside yesterday doing some work and he asked if I could move my sign since he was having company over and did not want to start a political debate with them. He thought it was mine, I thought it was his!
In my neighborhood that happened with YES signs -- all strategically placed along property lines.
I guess the only moral high ground here would be not to be placing signs...
I did not mean to imply that a "No" supporter did it, let alone that it was a concerted effort. Probably just some neighborhood kid to see how long it would stay up.
- - -
The Procrastinator/Vote Maybe Club of Tulsa has decided to set a meeting for 10/10 to help make sure our dyslexic friends can attend. Of course, we waited too long to schedule it so it doesn't matter anymore. Since it doesn't matter we have also invited Apathetics Anonymous to join. If they want to. Which they probably wont.
I found out I was dyslexic when I was invited to a toga party and brought a goat.
I found out I was dyslexic when I was invited to a Tulsa Wow party and brought... ahh, never mind.
Alternate:
I learned I was dyslexic when someone wrote me an email and said I liked Tulsa Now. For whatever reason I saw I "like, won a slut."
It is hard being dyslexic.
When I play Bingo, I yell Ognib!