Muwahahahah! Holy shit!

[Vovchandr]

@Captain Morgan

oh like this?

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that homeowners have a
constitutionally protected interest in placing political signs on their
own property when the municipality permits other kinds of lawn
signs. In City of Ladue v. Gilleo, the U.S. Supreme Court declared
63
a city ordinance to be unconstitutional which prohibited homeowne15
from displaying any signs on their property except residence
identification signs, “for sale” signs, and signs warning of safety
hazards. The City did permit commercial establishments, churches,
and nonprofit organizations to erect certain signs that were not
allowed at residences. In finding the ordinance unconstitutional, the
U.S. Supreme Court held that even though they may regulate the
physical characteristics of signs, local governments may not allow
some signs and ban others based upon their content. The City of
Ladue’s ordinance was simply too broad and effectively eliminated
residential political signs — an important method of expressing
political speech

Yep as long as they meet the requirements. What was your question again? He can put up anything he wants as long as it is in code.

@slwrthnu

so still where in that does it allow a cop to come and destroy your property?

oh btw, that is talking about a sign that was legal, then became illegal due to a new regulation, so was the sign in question once legal?

btw i haven’t read the thread, or am going to read up on it, bc i really don’t care and it’s more amusing to point out the holes in your case as your trying to play the other side and see you then trying to find something that backs you up.

D. If any sign is erected, altered, or moved in violation of the
provisions of this chapter, proper officials may, in addition to
other remedies, institute an appropriate action to prevent such
unlawful operation.
E. Upon failure to comply with any notice within the
prescribed time, the Enforcement Official shall remove or
cause removal, repair, or conformance of a sign, and shall
assess all costs and expenses incurred against the owner of the
building or land on which the sign is located.
F. All costs and expenses incurred by the Town of Ithaca in
causing the removal or repair of any sign, as specified in this
section and § 221-10, shall be collected from the owner of the
premises on which such sign is located. Payment shall be
made in not less than five days after the receipt of a written
demand. Upon failure to make such payment, such costs and
expenses shall be assessed against said owner and shall be
[FONT=serif]paid and collected as part of the Town and county tax next
due and payable. In addition, the Town may commence any
other action or proceeding to collect such costs and expenses.

I dont need to defend the town any more than I have. Show me where they aren’t allowed to damage the non conforming sigh that is due for removal?
[/FONT]