When Free Speech Collides With Property Values

[BPSCG]

You're interpreting Kant's words very literally.

Would the world be a better place if everybody sat in the front of the bus? Would the world be a better place if everyone became an engineer, or a farmer, or a president?

Acknowledged - I have trouble with the categorical imperative.

But Rosa Parks wasn't demanding the right to sit in front of the bus. She was demanding the right to sit in any vacant seat she chose. If a bus is full, you can't sit in the front, or in the back, or anywhere at all. And Rosa Parks wasn't demanding the right to sit whether or not there were seats available.

But the U.S. is a better place because she has the same right as anyone else to any vacant seat.

And the U.S. is a better place because everyone has the right to become an engineer, or a farmer, or a president.

Now, let's get back to the question I asked: Would Manassas be a better place if everyone had the right to put up a 40-foot sign in their yard? Would you want to live there?

 

[GreyICE]

Acknowledged - I have trouble with the categorical imperative.

But Rosa Parks wasn't demanding the right to sit in front of the bus. She was demanding the right to sit in any vacant seat she chose. If a bus is full, you can't sit in the front, or in the back, or anywhere at all. And Rosa Parks wasn't demanding the right to sit whether or not there were seats available.

But the U.S. is a better place because she has the same right as anyone else to any vacant seat.

And the U.S. is a better place because everyone has the right to become an engineer, or a farmer, or a president.

Now, let's get back to the question I asked: Would Manassas be a better place if everyone had the right to put up a 40-foot sign in their yard? Would you want to live there?

Would it be a better place? Potentially. Would Massachusetts be a better place if everyone publically addressed injustice and racism where they saw it, and honestly tried to make the world a better place by bringing it to the attention of those who would prefer to ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist?

The problem with Kant is that he is so very hard to interpret. It becomes a bit of a magic mirror - it shows the viewer what they want to see.

 

[BPSCG]

Would it be a better place? Potentially.

Nobody seems to want to answer my question. Would you want to live in a neighborhood where a guy had turned the 40-foot remnants of a burned-out house into a political diatribe?

(I'm assuming you don't already live in a neighborhood that's even worse...)

 

[rwguinn]

It doesn't. But there are two ways to deal with the huge ugly political sign.

The first is to destroy the sign.

The second is to destroy the REASON for the sign -- i.e. deal with the (political) content through the usual political process.

The fact that the city is taking the first course is what makes them bigots.

I beg your pardon?
EVERY City, village, and town I know of have laws on the books about maintaining a public nuisance, property upkeep, and the like.
There also laws about building codes and requirements.
This falls under the broad brush of "provide for the common welfare..." which is what the government does.
Once you take hammer, 2x4, and nail to a building, you are required to pull a permit just about anywhere.
Refusing to maintain, refusal to remove an eyesore--all actionable in many cases under that brush.

Are you suggesting that Rosa Parks was insisting upon her right to trash up the bus by putting her dirty black ass where it didn't belong?



Nope. He's insisting on his right as a citizen to express whatever political opinions he wants.




A better place than it would be if the city council could arbitarily tell people which 40-foot signs they could put in their yard? Which part of "YES" don't you understand?

You have the right to be heard. You do NOT have the right to attempt to force people to listen.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Different legal system.

Your neighbors can sue you for anything they like, but they'd not have a case. ("Lowering your property value" isn't an actionable tort unless you can show that I did it in violation of some agreement or duty or something.) But that's civil law and the first amendment is irrelevant.

The CITY is trying to use local ordinances to remove the billboard, which makes it state action --- and the first amendment applies. They'll have to show to the satisfaction of the court that they're using reasonable pre-existing rules that are fairly and consistently enforced.

If that 'message' was put up around here, I doubt anyone would care about the message, including the politicians it criticized, but they would care about the ugly sign issue.

Most cities in the US have building codes and most include signage rules in residential areas. When people live outside of city limits, that's another matter. If they don't have a local code, they likely cannot stop the man. OTOH, the signs in residential areas rules have to allow for campaign signs. They can, I think, limit the timing of political signs but I'm not sure. But I'm pretty sure sign ordinances cannot prohibit political messages.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Looks like the city as the usual sign ordinances. See Chapter 130, Zoning, ARTICLE IV. SIGNS.

 

[GreyICE]

Nobody seems to want to answer my question. Would you want to live in a neighborhood where a guy had turned the 40-foot remnants of a burned-out house into a political diatribe?

(I'm assuming you don't already live in a neighborhood that's even worse...)

I live in Brooklyn. It's a nice section, but frankly? I wouldn't really notice it.

It wouldn't bother me in the least.

 

[Puppycow]

As long as the rules are the same for everyone, I don't have any problem with an ordinance regulating whether or not signs are to be allowed, and their maximum size, etc.

But is this really such a big problem that it will drive down property values significantly?

I would first get a group of neighbors to ask him nicely to please take it down. "Lets be civil about this, shall we?"

If not, and if property values can be shown to go down, and legal recourse is available for eyesores such as a front yard full of trash, then sue him on the grounds that it's an eyesore just as a front yard full of trash would be.

 

[GreyICE]

As long as the rules are the same for everyone, I don't have any problem with an ordinance regulating whether or not signs are to be allowed, and their maximum size, etc.

But is this really such a big problem that it will drive down property values significantly?

I would first get a group of neighbors to ask him nicely to please take it down. "Lets be civil about this, shall we?"

If not, and if property values can be shown to go down, and legal recourse is available for eyesores such as a front yard full of trash, then sue him on the grounds that it's an eyesore just as a front yard full of trash would be.

That would probably fail the 1st amendment test. Yards full of garbage are not spreading a message.

If the yard was part of some work of art, then it probably would be similarly protected.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Nobody seems to want to answer my question. Would you want to live in a neighborhood where a guy had turned the 40-foot remnants of a burned-out house into a political diatribe?

(I'm assuming you don't already live in a neighborhood that's even worse...)

I wouldn't want to live in a neighborhood that had remnants of a burned-out house sitting around, no matter what use it was put to.

 

[lionking]

I agree with BPSCG, but someone locally had a gripe against a doctor and erected a sign on a trailer which he parked in the street outside. It wasn't covered by any ordinance and stayed there. When somebody complained to the council, he moved it to the other side of the street. Now this is an area which regulates the colour of your concrete driveway (it must be concrete of course) and demands you have an outdoor entertainment area.

 

[BPSCG]

Looks like the city as the usual sign ordinances. See Chapter 130, Zoning, ARTICLE IV. SIGNS.

Good research skeptigirl. Now, why haven't the powers that be in Manassas done the same research? I'd like to assume they have a city attorney, and that he/she isn't an idiot. I wonder if there isn't something that makes this situation inapplicable.

ETA: Jeff Corey's post below appears to have answered my last question.

 

[BPSCG]

That would probably fail the 1st amendment test. Yards full of garbage are not spreading a message.

That's irrelevant. As I wrote above, first amendment rights are not absolute. I can't punch you in the face and claim immunity under the first amendment because "I was expressing my opinion of him." I can't spray paint your house with the message, "BPSCG = GR8" and claim as a defense that I was "spreading a message" that was protected by the first amendment.

Why should this guy's message be protected? If you want to argue that it's his property, would you say his message was protected if it railed against ni**ers and kikes and accused the filthy wops of mass murder? If not, why should his accusation that the governments of Prince William County and the City of Manassas are like the KKK, i.e., racist murderers, be protected?

If the yard was part of some work of art, then it probably would be similarly protected.

Again, do you think there are no limits to the protections of the first amendment? Would a "work of art" that consisted of an eight-by-ten foot color photo of you having sex with a goat be protected?

The first amendment is not the ace of trumps, that wins every clash of rights.

 

[drkitten]

I beg your pardon?
EVERY City, village, and town I know of have laws on the books about maintaining a public nuisance, property upkeep, and the like.
There also laws about building codes and requirements.

Er, wrong? According to the article, at least, there IS no law against erecting a sign on your property in this town, and evidently the laws about public nuisance and property upkeep were not being enforced until he painted the sign on the side of the building.

Hence, this is arbitrary selective enforcement against the content of speech.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Looks like the city as the usual sign ordinances. See Chapter 130, Zoning, ARTICLE IV. SIGNS.

Section 130 - 127, Signs Not Requiring Permit, (11) Political signs on private property.

 

[autumn1971]

Section 130 - 127, Signs Not Requiring Permit, (11) Political signs on private property.

It would not require a permit, but would still need to conform to the codes for a sign of its type, which I believe in this case would be a wall sign, and I believe, although I have not read the entire municipal code, that because a wall sign is defined as being on the side of a building, there are probably codes outlining that a ruin of a building is not a building.

As for the question of living in a neighborhood with such a sign, almost all communities have extensive codes to prevent egregiously garish things from being done. I would not personally like to live in a community that did nothing to prevent such a large and gaudy sign from being erected, but I'm sure there are those who would take pride in living in a relaxed and non-regulated environment.

I'm actually much more outraged by plastic flamingos.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That section refers to a permit, Jeff, not the other rules which apply such as size and setback.

 

[fagin]

He should just apply to build a wall around the property, then paint on that. Problem solved.

 

[GreyICE]

That's irrelevant. As I wrote above, first amendment rights are not absolute. I can't punch you in the face and claim immunity under the first amendment because "I was expressing my opinion of him." I can't spray paint your house with the message, "BPSCG = GR8" and claim as a defense that I was "spreading a message" that was protected by the first amendment.

Punching me n the face fails in the 'speech' part of freedom of speech. Spray painting my house is different, it's not your property.

I find it interesting that your examples of where the 1st amendment don't apply involve physical harm to my person and damage to my property, as opposed to a written message on property owned by the author.

Why should this guy's message be protected?

Wrong question. Messages are protected by default. You have to show why the message is not protected. Above, physically assaulting me is obviously not protected under a speech amendment and defacing my property is illegal, see 'private property.'

The question "Why should this guy's message be protected" shows a disturbing lack of understanding of the checks and balances necessary in a free society.

If you want to argue that it's his property, would you say his message was protected if it railed against ni**ers and kikes and accused the filthy wops of mass murder? If not, why should his accusation that the governments of Prince William County and the City of Manassas are like the KKK, i.e., racist murderers, be protected?

It should be protected.

Again, do you think there are no limits to the protections of the first amendment? Would a "work of art" that consisted of an eight-by-ten foot color photo of you having sex with a goat be protected?

Well I'd be surprised if anyone could get that photo, and I'm surprised that you've chosen to make all of these acts attacks on me, when I am not a public figure and do not define public policy, and moreover, choose to do so in such a way that clearly violates obscenity laws, when this clearly does NOT violate obscenity laws. Since we're comparing apples and hamburgers here, I don't see the point.

The first amendment is not the ace of trumps, that wins every clash of rights.

No. But it does mean the burden of proof is on you, not me.

 

[The Painter]

He didn't put up a sign. He painted words on the remnant wall of a house that burned down, and reinforced the remnant wall so it wouldn't fall over.

If that's a remnant wall of a burned down house, they sure burn down very neatly down in Manassas