Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Article about protest sign - size or content?

  1. #1
    Cyburbian Plus JNA's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    De Noc
    Posts
    19,292

    Article about protest sign - size or content?

    Louisville Courier- Journal print headline: Protest gets attention in St. Louis
    Orginal article headline: Political protest hits a brick wall
    St. Louis officials say the mural is too big. Its author says they're against the message, not the medium.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,3421808.story

    The picture is worth saving, Somebody please save it to the appropriate gallery.

    HIGHLIGHT:
    St. Louis officials say the mural is too big. Its author says they're against the message, not the medium.
    Local codes restrict signs in the city's residential areas to 30 square feet in total size, said Matthew Moak, an associate city attorney. The mural is 24 feet across -- 15 times the maximum.
    So what do you think - is it about size (zoning violation) or the content (being against the city) ?
    I believe it is abit of both.
    Or is it protected by the 1st Amendment ? I believe yes.
    When is a mural not a sign ? Not sure.

    I wonder if this court case will national attention - CNN or Planning Magazine ?
    Oddball
    Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves?
    Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here?
    Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
    From Kelly's Heroes (1970)


    Are you sure you're not hurt ?
    No. Just some parts wake up faster than others.
    Broke parts take a little longer, though.
    From Electric Horseman (1979)

  2. #2
    Off-topic:
    It's this sentence that infuriated me yesterday when I read it in the Courier-Journal and again today in your post:

    Since the 2005 Supreme Court ruling that local governments could seize private property and hand it over to developers, the battle over the practice of eminent domain has led to a slew of state legislation over the issue.
    No. Wrong. Uh-uh. Absolutely not. Positively not. The writer is either lazy or biased, but the editor must have been asleep at the keyboard, ingorant, or biased."Seizing property and handing it over to a developer" would be a taking and the Constitution prohibits takings. Plain and simple.

    Eminent domain is constitutional (at least in some still level-headed places) because the government acquires the property through a purchase. The Supreme Court held in Kelo v. New London that "increasing the tax base" is a public purpose which justified the use of eminent domain -- not "taking" private property without "just compensation".


    As to the sign, I have to agree with St. Louis officials: it is an illegal sign and it should be cited and removed.
    Last edited by Gedunker; 14 Jul 2008 at 10:13 AM. Reason: spelling...

  3. #3
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    31
    I live down the street from that beautiful artistic mural and I think itís great!

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 13
    Last post: 30 May 2012, 9:51 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last post: 12 Dec 2008, 5:17 PM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last post: 18 Jun 2008, 8:13 AM
  4. Signs / billboards Content neutral sign regulations
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 10
    Last post: 26 Jul 2006, 6:00 PM