For a good look at the sign that may have caused the sign battle in October in District One, take a look at this article on First Electric Newspaper.
It seems that when the property owner made a deal with the owner of the signpost and billboard out front at 1075 W. Algonquin Rd. (just east of Pyott Rd.), in Algonquin, the fine print in the contract precluded him from allowing any political sign of an opponent.
Frankly, I'm wondering about the legality and ethics of such a contract provision if, indeed, it is part of the contract. When the sign post and platform were erected, did the sign company really know that, at some time in the future, political advertising might be sold on the sign, such as Bob Bless' ad shown in the photograph?
Cannot a person continue to possess his First Amendment rights, or can they be signed away in a contract?
That is the property where Nick Chirikos got permission to place his signs. That's the property where Steve the Enforcer chose to take issue with Nick's sign. And where Steve was arrested. And then un-arrested.
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
5 comments:
Legality & ethics of such a contract? First amendment rights?
Are you insane? Of course the PRIVATE property owner can ban activities - otherwise permissible - on his own property. If you come to my house as an invited guest I can force you to leave if you start talking nonsense that I don't like. I can even have the sheriff come and remove you if you won't go on your own. My property ownership rights trumps your freedom of speech. If you choose to stand on the curb or street in front of my house and babble this nonsense there's nothing much I can do about that except laugh at you as everyone does now.
So it would appear (and only APPEAR since we don't have the facts yet) that Steve's boss contracted with the property owner to gain exclusive permission to erect signage at 1075 W. Algonquin Rd. Certainly a permissible contact for the pair to enter into. Whether or not it was the smartest thing for either one to do is debatable. That said, the property owner has given up his right to allow others to post signage on his property. He was compensated in the contract so that's the end of it. Along comes Bob Bless or his campaign workers and suddenly his sign is on the premises of 1705 W. Algonquin Rd. If he did not obtain permission anyone having a property interest in the premises (and both the sign company and the actual owner do) then either of them - or their agent(s) can trash the signs so placed. If Bless/Supporters DID get permission of the property owner, well, maybe a judge would have to decide in the end but it seems reasonable that the tenant (the sign company or its agent) could pull it down.
I don't see it as being much different than your landlord coming into your apartment and placing an Vote for Nygren/Zinke/or anyone else who you despise and you tearing it up and flushing it. In that case your rights as tenant trumps your landlord's.
Either you know that and you're trolling or you are a complete fool. Which is it?
Uh, make that Chirikos' sign and/or workers.
The sign company's employee (Steve) has no legal right to remove the Chirikos signs, unless the contract between the sign company and the property owner grants that condition.
If the sign company believes that the property owner has violated the contract, then it can only request him to comply. If he fails to, it can take him to court and exercise any monetary claim agreed to the contract.
Steve was arrested for theft; well, sort of. Until somebody pulled strings at the Sheriff's Dept. and cut Steve loose. And gave him a ride back to his vehicle.
This is the issue. How high up in the sheriff's dept. was the slack cut?
Gus, can you post the copy of the contract you are getting your info from for us all to read. You are stating as a fact that this provision was in "the fine print" and what the remedies for this particular violation would be...so I suppose it is safe to assume you have a copy.
Yes, I believe the document would be very important to review (I learned this tactic from a guy who writes this blog). Trust me, it's going to be poorly drafted, and not say what you said it said.
Post a Comment