I am in the process of updating lebocitizens.com with the Commission agenda for Tuesday, and saw that the Commissioners are voting on the rewording of the sign ordinance by deleting the definition of political or election signs and replacing it with "personal opinion" signs and including the new definition to be: "A Temporary Sign which conveys a (i) political message, (ii) religious message, (iii) a personal message, or (iv) message that directs attention to a candidate or candidates for Public office, a political party or a ballot issue." http://mtlebanon.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=3960 I know the Planning Board thinks this will open up the floodgates and can encourage hate signs. Planning Board says no to rewording sign ordinance.
Is this how the Municipality is addressing "the potential proliferation of electronic billboards and signage in the region" as written by Deb Smit in her Pop City article? The irony of this is that there are a few Pop City writers who are fighting FOR proliferation of signage in Mt. Lebanon.
10 comments:
One of the prices we pay for the benefits of free speech is to suffer the right of other people to express their beliefs in ways we don’t like – including the use of yard signs. It’s a small price to pay, especially when compared to what others have paid to purchase the freedom of speech that we enjoy today.
As they are, our municipal restrictions on yard signs would probably not withstand scrutiny in court. (Even with the proposed changes, I’m not sure they couldn’t be successfully challenged.) The U.S. Supreme Court has held that yard signs are “a venerable means of communication that is both unique and important” and deserving of protection. The Court held that local ordinances may impose reasonable restrictions on the size and placement of yard signs, but not on content, and even then not to the degree where speech itself would be restricted. (See City of Ladue v. Gilleo.)
While I’m certainly not fighting for the proliferation of nuisance signs in Mt. Lebanon, I’m willing to risk that outcome to protect the right of others to express their beliefs in their own yards.
One more thing: I think you’re misreading temporary in this context. In the Mt. Lebanon zoning ordinance, it’s not a matter of time but permanence. It’s defined like so:
Temporary Sign: any Sign not permanently attached to a Structure or the ground that can be easily transported to any location.
So, for sample, you can display an SOS yard sign for as long as you want, but you cannot erect a permanent structure to display the same message.
Tom, I understand what you are saying. What do you think about what Alan London, from the Planning Board said? He is an attorney, but his concern is that it can turn into an opportunity to post hate signs.
If the VOICE people are true to their word, the signs should be coming down when we break ground on April 28. At least that is what the Feb. 14, 2011 post on their website says.
Elaine, I’m willing to tolerate speech that I don’t like and even that I find offensive. I think we all ought to.
Many of the liberties we take for granted today were once ideas that were not merely unpopular but genuinely offensive, especially to those in power. At one time, it was offensive to say that women were capable of being full citizens or that the slaves should be freed; these ideas were literally an offense to what most people held to be “the natural order.” And yet, because people who believed otherwise were permitted to speak, even though their words offended many, these ideas and others like them were able to take root, grow, and become the heartwood of a strong and prosperous nation.
Many people who came before us gave their lives, their sons, their daughters to purchase for us the right to speak freely. When it falls to us to preserve their priceless gift, and when the cost of doing so is merely to tolerate other people expressing their beliefs, how can we not do our part?
As I said before, Tom, I understand what you are saying. Do you feel that the people behind the SOS signs have offended those in power? Were they ever denied the right to speak freely at School Board meetings? Is there such a thing as displaying a sign that has run its course, or outlived itself? Having a yard sign that says, “Nixon’s The One” would be pretty silly to have posted. Besides the collectors fighting over it, I don’t see a reason to display it. It served its purpose in its time. The SOS signs have a website that hasn’t been updated since February 14. Even they have given up on it. This group has not been oppressed. They have always been able to express their feelings and people, including myself, have listened to every word. Their right to speak freely was never denied. Their words have never been edited out of any podcast. I question their motives for keeping up the signs after they have served their purpose. In fact, they won. Now it is our job to figure out how we’re supposed to pay for it. Where are they now? I also find it interesting that on one hand, they write, “Change is inevitable, but ugliness is unacceptable. That's the idea behind Scenic America, a national organization devoted to safeguarding the country's natural beauty and community character.” On the other hand, they want us to continue to look at these signs for what, seven months now? One home just has the wire stand because the sign fell apart. Every time I drive by it, I hope that someone doesn’t get hurt. To hear you say that people have given their lives for what is going on in Mt. Lebanon is offensive to me, but I am willing to tolerate it and heck, even publish it.
At the risk of sounding like I am repeating myself, which I am, I hope the VOICE people are true to their word and we can look forward to the signs coming down on April 28, 2011.
I drove home from the Village and passed Mrs. Rose's house the other day. There was an SOS sign in her front yard. Freedom of speech or not, that sign makes us look like Dormont.
Smooth move, Sue.
John Ewing
I have been really busy with my campaign and saw this comment from Tom Moertel.
Elaine,
It’s simple: Do you support the right of other residents to display SOS signs in their yards?
Cheers,
Tom
Sorry, I hit the delete button instead of the publish button, Tom.
Here is the short answer. I support any signs that are compliant with the Zoning Regulations.
After reading ZONING ORDINANCE
ALSO KNOWN AS
CHAPTER XX,MT. LEBANON CODE
ORDINANCE 2636 AS AMENDED
823 Sign Regulations
I believe the word "temporary" refers to a measure of time, not portability. But I am not an attorney.
Gotta run and do some more campaigning.
Elaine
In my travels throughout Lebo yesterday I made runs between Jefferson, Howe, Foster and everywhere in between. I counted 4 SOS signs. Surprisingly, all 4 were within 500 yards of each other (3 on Roycroft and 1 on Mt. Lebanon Blvd). I also counted 8 Relay for Life signs and 3 candidate signs. So what's the big deal?
Dave Franklin
I agree "What's the big deal?", Mr. Franklin. See and we didn't even have to have coffee.
But I wonder if you might have overlooked the possibility that these well-bred, intellectual (they live in MTL so they must be so) residents read their signs literally.
Therefore, until Ms. Posti sticks her shovel into the grass at the groundbreaking they hold hope that the board may come to their senses and actually "SAVE OUR SCHOOL". So, to them it might be a big deal.
Oh well, but on the subject of signs.
Since you seem to take such great delight in examining residents and their motives through the looking glass, you might answer something.
Which side of the brain are the self-appointed, LEED-loving, guardians of the environment using when they visually clutter the Mt. Lebanon landscape and eventually litter our landfills with plastic, paper and steel wire for the sole purpose of posting the vacant message-- "Vote for [name]"?
-Giffen Good
Giffen, I was just wondering about that last night. Can they be recycled? Signs are so expensive. I am trying to run a low budget campaign, so you will not see signs clustered together. If I were running unopposed, I wouldn’t have any signs. There would be no reason to have them, and it would be just throwing money down the drain. I don’t like to waste money; not my money or anyone else's money. I guess that is part of being fiscally responsible.
Elaine
Post a Comment