# Muwahahahah!  Holy shit!

**URL:** <https://forums.speedlife.net/t/muwahahahah-holy-shit/267765>\
**Category:** Shift518 Off Topic\
**Created:** [September 23, 2013, 3:27pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/muwahahahah-holy-shit/267765 "2013-09-23T15:27:29Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 28

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Vovchandr](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/vovchandr/32/6275_2.png) [@Vovchandr](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Vovchandr)\
**Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 7:37am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/muwahahahah-holy-shit/267765/28 "2013-09-24T07:37:18Z")

</div>

> [@FF: Weider home gym. FS: Coffee Table.](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ff-weider-home-gym-fs-coffee-table/53456/7):
>
> 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.

> [@Homeowners step in. Foundation time](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/homeowners-step-in-foundation-time/53467/24):
>
> 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]

---

_[View the full topic](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/muwahahahah-holy-shit/267765)._