09-26-2007 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 1 of 1 Kathy Glanzer From: Simcha Plisner [splisner @comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 11:30 AM To: Joel Hanson; Kathy Glanzer Cc: Bill Blesener; Barbara_Allan; Michael_McGraw; Rick_Montour; John_Keis Subject: Sign ordinance open meeting Joel Hanson, Manager and to the City Clerk City of Little Canada Little Canada, MN Dear Joel: Re: Signage Ordinance I understand the city is about to amend its sign ordinance and is having an open meeting of the counsel to pass the ordinance change. I am writing to encourage the city to table the matter until thorough review by legal counsel can be made so that clear language in the ordinance is included excepting political speech messages on signs entirely or substantially when placed on residential property by the property owner. If you Google the subject you will find that signage ordinances across the country have been declared unconstitutional for time and place restriction on signs concerning political speech especially in residential areas. Political speech is more than candidate election signs. No citizen should have to get permission from the government to engage in political speech nor have to pay a fee for the privilege. I understand the good intentions behind signage ordinates. No doubt some resident may disagree with the content. Some may think the sign unsitely. Some may be worried about property values. If someone acts in a manner which brings down property values he or she is doing it to themselves too. Self interest would motivate against such behavior on any permanent basis. People who wish to have strict rules about their neighborhoods can always move into gated communities or buy in were there are well established private covenants. Even there limits on restrictions may exist. A recent case challenged the right of a home owner to erect a plag pole and run the stars and stripes on the pole within just such a private covenanted neighborhood prohibiting it. The convenant being illegal as a violation of public policy. Minority rights must be prevented along with the will of the majority. If a neighbor acts unneighborly the neighbors should speak with the person and reason. They can bring private suit. The government has for too long been extending its police power over private citizens acting peacefully. As I have been arguing for years, if government would require surveilance cameras in every room in every home and business and monitor them we could probably reduce crime and other bad behavior to almost zero; but, who want to live in such a country? I ask that this letter be read into the minutes of the coining counsel meeting concerning the ordinance as I can not physically attend. Sincerely, Simcha Plisner 9/25/2007