The back story is that a Somerset Town Councilman Tom Eldridge bought an old house in the Brookdale neighborhood (not that these locations have any impact on the story). Common in many neighborhoods in metropolitan areas, Eldridge didn't like the tiny old house and got permission from the county to raze the house and build a brand new 6,000 foot plus McMansion on the property--but not to live in but to sell. Not surprisingly neighbors were upset and posted in their yards a sign reading "Council Member Tom Eldridge, We Don't Want Your McMansion for Profit in Our Neighborhood!"
Sounds like your normal neighborhood dispute about development. Except that the PRMC has now issued violation notices to the people who have the signs in their yard, citing " a county law limiting lawn signs to no more than 30 days in a year, unless the resident wants to pay a $29.70 fee and apply for a permit." The violation notices are the first step towards fines that could be $500 per day.
The sign itself looks to be, at most, 3 feet by 3 feet in size and are posted solely on protesters private property. But the county has seen fit to limit yard advertising to 30 days. If you want to do more you have to pay a fee and apply for a permit. What kind of insanity is this? These siogns are not a commercial advertisement nor is the ordinance a reasonable time, place and manner restriction--both areas that have been permitted by the Supreme Court in free speech jurisdictions. These are simply signs opposing an action the protesters don't like. This regulation clearly violates free speech principles. Here are some of the common yard signs that would violate this law in some or even all cases:
- A yard sign supporting a candidate for office during election time which could last months.
- A For Sale sign in your yard--some in my neighborhood have been up for six or seven weeks
- A sign advertising in home day care
- Alarm company signs (often there is a requirement in those contracts to have those out for 2 or 3 months) or alarm company sign desiged to scare off burglars.
Of course PRMC is not a county known for logic and common sense given some of the dumb moves they have made in the past. However, this is an ordinance that any high school graduate with just a cursory knowledge of the Constitution would say is a violation of Free Speech.
In one of the few moves that I agree with, the ACLU has sent a letter to "County Attorney Charles W. Thompson Jr. that the order is unconstitutional because it restricts a person's right to express opinions on his own property." Thompson's response:
"The ACLU does a terrific job in the work they do, and they sent us a very thoughtful and researched letter, and we are looking into it," Thompson said.
Presumably Mr. Thompson has graduated law school and is a member of the Maryland Bar Association. This doesn't take a lot of work to figure out.
Stuck in the OTB Traffic Jam
No comments:
Post a Comment