Montebello's political climate rises, campaign contributions re...

ytw wrote:

Suggestion number 4 should be:
"No LIBELOUS large signs."
"Slander" is verbal, "libel" is written.
I would like to see no large signs at all.

Thank you, I stand corrected.

Be Happy wrote:

I think i is fair to say that some of the candidates went way overboard in mailers, signs, robo-calling, etc.
Does anyone favor a proposal to either the new board or existing board of creating a city ordinance which would limit the date and amount of signs used during a city election?
I for one am responsible for putting up almost 80 large signs throughout the city, and personally, I feel that is way too much.
Some ideas to the ordinance could be:
1.No political signs prior to 45 calender days from the election.
2.No more than 1 large sign per intesection.
3.No large signs on residential properties.
4.No SLANDEROUS large signs.
Just some ideas popped out there. What do you think?

So much for the First Amendment of freedom of speech . I for one am glad elections are not yearly. And in March or April what about those Retire Molinari signs ?? There was no election that early in the year. Who put those signs out? Athens have anything to do with that ?? Your points 1 thru 4 are well intented but do indeed violate the right to freedom of speech.

Clayton Delany wrote:

<quoted text>
So much for the First Amendment of freedom of speech . I for one am glad elections are not yearly. And in March or April what about those Retire Molinari signs ?? There was no election that early in the year. Who put those signs out? Athens have anything to do with that ?? Your points 1 thru 4 are well intented but do indeed violate the right to freedom of speech.

Although I see your point, I do not believe that it is a violation of first amendment rights.
I am not saying that candidates should not have the ability to put signs up, but what I am saying is that the candidates should use discretion when doing so.
If a person yells about atheism with a bullhorn in front of a Sunday Mass, is he exercising his first amendment rights or is he disturbing the peace?
I think people don't mind the signs as long as it is done with moderation and discretion. Seeing 6 large candidate signs within a 2 block radius is probably going a little overboard. Even you have to admit that there was way too many signs this time around, and I will admit, I was personally responsible for over 80 of those large signs.
Remember, if people don't like all those signs, you should abide by the will of the people, that's a lesson Rosie, Norma, Bob and Jeff learned the hard way.

Mr. Delany,

"Be Happy's" points 1 - 4 do not violate the First Amendment's guarantees regarding Freedom of Speech.

1.No political signs prior to 45 calender days from the election.

Many cities have already enacted similar ordinances. At last night's Montebello City Council meeting, Mayor Vasquez mentioned such an example in the city of Walnut which could be used as a model for Montebello.

Cities have the right to establish rules and ordinances regarding the posting of signage in order to preserve the aesthetic quality of their neighborhoods and business districts. Even individual homeowner's association have the right to establish limits on the type and location of signs their residents can display as long as they don't violate the Davis Stirling Act.

2.No more than 1 large sign per intersection.

Again, this suggestion is not intended to restrict freedom of speech but rather to control the misuse of that right.

3.No large signs on residential properties.

Again, no problem here. The issue is the "size" of the sign, not the existence of one.

4.No SLANDEROUS large signs.

SLANDER and LIBEL are both CRIMES. Criminal speech is NOT covered under Free Speech.

ytw wrote:

Mr. Delany,
"Be Happy's" points 1 - 4 do not violate the First Amendment's guarantees regarding Freedom of Speech.
1.No political signs prior to 45 calender days from the election.
Many cities have already enacted similar ordinances. At last night's Montebello City Council meeting, Mayor Vasquez mentioned such an example in the city of Walnut which could be used as a model for Montebello.
Cities have the right to establish rules and ordinances regarding the posting of signage in order to preserve the aesthetic quality of their neighborhoods and business districts. Even individual homeowner's association have the right to establish limits on the type and location of signs their residents can display as long as they don't violate the Davis Stirling Act.
2.No more than 1 large sign per intersection.
Again, this suggestion is not intended to restrict freedom of speech but rather to control the misuse of that right.
3.No large signs on residential properties.
Again, no problem here. The issue is the "size" of the sign, not the existence of one.
4.No SLANDEROUS large signs.
SLANDER and LIBEL are both CRIMES. Criminal speech is NOT covered under Free Speech.

By chance do you know if any of those cities have been challenged in a court of law ?

Clayton Delany wrote:

<quoted text>
By chance do you know if any of those cities have been challenged in a court of law ?

What do you think they would be challenged on?

ytw wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you think they would be challenged on?

Oh I'm quite certain an attorney would know on that. Most ordinances ,laws ,rules etc are never challenged in a court of law thus are accepted by people. A good attorney can do wonders. Just because a city passes something it does not mean it's totally lawful.

Mr. Delany,

You are correct, it may be that certain types of restrictions on signage are not constitutional.
I based my previous remarks on the "content" of the sign, rather than the actual size of the sign itself but I've learned that some cities have tried to use such restrictions for that very purpose.

I still believe it is illegal to post signs containing libelous content.

Here is a link to an excellent article at First Amendment Center.org that covers the issue of political yard signs:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pe...

Thanks for teh excellent link