Laserfiche WebLink
Session 1937 <br />October 11,2004 <br /> <br />Councilmember Brot read a written statement on behalf of Gerry Grieman, 7042 <br />Westmoreland, who wanted to speak but was unable to do so as the result of a death in <br />the family. He is an attorney and chairperson of the Litigation Practice Group. His <br />reasons for speaking relate to free speech issues and first amendment rights. He cited <br />a case about political sign placement in neighboring Ladue which went all the way to the <br />Supreme Court and he shared the Court's decision as relating to the case. In short, the <br />Supreme Court supports placement of political signs at residents' homes. Cities cannot <br />ban signs for aesthetic interests; they cannot regulate based upon sign content; these <br />are violations of the first amendment. Cities do, however, have the right to impose <br />restrictions on time limits. He reviewed the University City ordinance on signs and <br />shared the following points: <br /> · limiting the number of signs to one per candidate, civic campaign issue, or <br /> other noncommercial message is consistent with numerical limits on other <br /> types of signs <br /> · height and area of signs are problematic because they differ from height <br /> and area limitations for construction and real estate signs <br /> · display time of 30 days is short; rules differ for candidates who are <br /> successful in the primary elections <br /> · display time allowing primary election winners to display signs longer is <br /> vague as to application and vulnerable to charges of interpretation <br /> · removal of signs by City employees from other than public right-of-way <br /> may be unconstitutional <br />He said he will answer questions and that these are his own personal views and not <br />those of his firm. His statements must not be considered legal advice. <br /> <br />Neva Taylor, 1150 Ursula Avenue, spoke about inconsistencies in enforcing regulations <br />relating to political sign placement and asked for clarification of the rules. During the <br />last primary election she and her family encountered removal of their political signs by <br />unauthorized persons and asked if the City would impose fines and restrictions on <br />persons who do this? She wants to know how business owners who display political <br />signs will be considered and asked for further clarification of the State versus local <br />ordinances, specifically which supercedes the other? She would like to see sign <br />removal inconsistencies met with threats of fines. <br /> <br />Tobias Gibson, 1058 Raisher Drive, is concerned about the importance of freedom of <br />speech issues and considers political speech as a "sacred right." He believes there has <br />been selected enforcement of the statute as written in respect of early placement of <br />some political signs while others are removed. He believes artificial time limits result in <br />"a playing field that is not level for the disenfranchised" and he said that issue signs are <br />not limited in the way that candidate signs are limited. <br /> <br />Willa Boisseau, 8701 Delmar Boulevard, considers placement of political signs as a <br />basic freedom, and feels that when University City persecutes citizens over political <br />signs that it is "as bad as Ladue" as described by Gerald Grieman in his comments read <br /> Page 6 <br /> <br /> <br />