The question from the founding of our nation has always been whether such a nation conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, could long endure. Could common men and women hold on to the keys of the republic against all who would seek to take control?
As an American soldier, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution, joining countless others who dedicated themselves, so this nation, and that government of the people, by the people and for the people, would not perish from the earth.
Yet today, it seems that every level of government, local, state and federal has its own agenda and priorities, and cannot live within its means.
• I believe we cannot spend more than people can afford to pay in taxes, or saddle our children with debt, and call that “making progress.”
• We cannot keep raising taxes on working families, seniors and small businesses.
I am sure our founding fathers never intended Americans to pay half their income to the government in taxes.
• The increase in property taxes is not simply the result of local spending on things we can see, but from the state diverting much needed resources to pay for badly managed programs. Cuts in Local Aid, as the state took several hundred million dollars out of the Lottery Fund, money intended for education, has cost Westfield five million dollars over the last five years.
We learned that nearly 20 percent of the state sales tax, and a portion of the gas tax increase is being diverted to the MBTA, which has 2.5 billion dollars on hand. We are paying for something that does not benefit us, and being robbed blind.
What can we as citizens do to address these issues? First, we need to be informed of what is going on. We need candidates for office who are willing to ask questions and challenge the status quo. Politicians tend to see the light, when they can feel the heat. If that is not enough to convince politicians to do the right thing, the people need to be able to replace them.
The First Amendment is one of the greatest protections we have in order to be an informed citizenry, and self-governing. Sadly, what passes for news coverage and media today leaves much to be desired, and too many politicians routinely ignore the US Constitution.
One example is Westfield’s sign ordinance. It prevents candidates from putting up yard signs, and “getting their name out there” even for a short time early in the election cycle. Without ever expressly putting in writing, it is a masterpiece restricting freedom of speech, political expression and private property owner’s rights. This is a form of censorship, and exposes the city to the possibility of another lawsuit.
I am not a lawyer, but I knew in my heart this was wrong. Recent Supreme Court decisions clearly states what cities can and cannot do regulating temporary signs, without violating the First Amendment.
The First Amendment requires nothing less. Innocent motives do not eliminate the danger of censorship presents by a content-based statute, as future government officials may one day wield such statutes to suppress disfavored speech. That is why the First Amendment expressly targets the operation of the laws—for example, the “abridgement of speech”—rather than merely the motives of those who enacted them.
In its decision in REED v. the TOWN OF GILBERT, ARIZONA, the court said:
“Cities have ample content-neutral options available to resolve problems with safety and aesthetics; regulating many aspects of signs that have nothing to do with a sign’s message or content, such as size, materials, lighting, moving parts, the number of signs permitted within a given distance, and portability.”
The Supreme Court has repeatedly considered whether a law is content-neutral first, before turning to the law’s justification or purpose.
In other words, it is not enough to treat all signs equally. Municipalities cannot create ordinances that restrict temporary signs based on their content. City powers are limited to resolving problems with safety and aesthetics, not when a sign can be displayed.
On public property, the Town may go a long way toward entirely forbidding the posting of signs.
Special rules for “campaign signs” are common in sign ordinances, and pose a major legal risk. Our sign ordinance limits putting up signs to two months prior to “an event”, and no more than 4 months in a calendar year. The problem is that in the case of political campaigns, it never defines the term “event”.
The proposed change would remove the word “event” and treat all temporary signs the same.
The new ordinance would allow all temporary signs to be displayed for up to “60 consecutive days”, and no more than 120 days in a calendar year. We could require that a simple form with dates, be filled out and filed with the Building Inspector’s office.
When challenged in court, political sign rules are almost always invalidated and the government is ordered to pay attorney fee awards to challengers. The key problem is that political sign rules, even when written to “treat everybody alike,” still amount to “the government choosing the topic of debate.
In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled in Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley;
Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.
Time based ordinances have been ruled unconstitutional, over and over again. In Maguire v. American Canyon, a Federal District Court ruled that a 90-day display limit was unconstitutional.
I am working to write a city ordinance on temporary signs with City Planner Jay Vinskey and submitted questions to the Law Department with regard to our current ordinance.
The Planning Board will continue its public hearing on Tuesday, August 18, 7 pm and the City Council will continue its public hearing on the matter on Thursday, August 20, at 7 pm. Both meetings are in council chambers.
The beauty and genius of the Constitution is that all can read and understand it. The same is true for the Supreme Court opinions on this matter. It was a learning experience for me, until I understood how the high court approached this subject. Before that, I was willing to go along with a time restriction. The problem is that would be unconstitutional, only confuse people and still leave the city open to challenge.
And as we all know, if you give the devil an inch, he will take a mile.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not the staff, editor, or publisher of this publication.
