About 2 1/2 weeks ago, Nowroski's Nazis began harassing people displaying three lawn signs for various candidates, even Panto. They were sent letters telling them to reduce the number or face a $1,000 fine. Officers actually cruised up and down the streets, removing signs from the private property between a person's sidewalk and the street.
Here's what Easton's Patti Bruno posted on Facebook: "My PARENTS who have resided in the City of Easton for over 3 DECADES and have displayed signs in the flower bed, off the street, of their private property for as many years, were threatened with a $1,000 fine for 'too many political signs' on their PRIVATE property ... ."
In doing so, they may have been following Easton's code, but that's trumped by the First Amendment. Campaign signs are core political speech. No municipality has any right to tell citizens who they support in their front yard or when they can say it. In 2010, South Whitehall Tp lawyer Rick Orloski sued Township officials when they attempted to enforce a sign ordinance for political candidates. He was represented by Bucks County lawyer Larry Otter, who has been successful in nearly 100 campaign sign lawsuits filed against municipalities throughout the state. A municipality can remove a sign on its own property; on telephone poles or streetlights; or if it is a traffic hazard. But no municipality can interfere with a citizen's right to express himself on his own property, whether it is a campaign sign or an upside down flag.
The United States Supreme Court in 1994 ruled that campaign lawn signs, a "venerable means of communication that is both unique and important," are protected by the First Amendment. "A special respect for individual liberty in the home has long been part of our culture and our law ... ; that principle has special resonance when the government seeks to constrain a person's ability to speak there."
Yesterday, Easton's lawyers instructed the City that, like it or not, the First Amendment permits these signs. So Nowroski's Nazis code officers spent most of the day replanting the signs they unlawfully uprooted.
Update 5:30 pm: I apologize for referring to Easton's code officers as Nazis. Most of them are good people. Moreover, my use of that word trivializes the real anti-Semitism that exists in our world.
37 comments:
Ha, yesterday , I was taking a person to Oaks who can’t drive due to knee replacement, there was a city code car at 13 th street ,and man was out of car ,a woman was planting signs for DA or Judge in middle of exchange at rt22. ?.
Big gun, little brain.
To be completely honest Bernie, I’m surprised Easton’s Planning and Codes even had the time for this 1st Amendment assault when they, at a minimum, had to pass by 2 properties (717 Spring Garden and 727 Sassafras) that are in a state of disrepair that is a visible danger to other residents. 717 has a porch roof and chimney ready to come down into the street and alley way and 727 has been abandoned/vacant for well close to or over a decade now and has been repeatedly reported to them with little to no action taken.
I’m very concerned and curious as to who directly ordered the sign crackdown and if it was, as it seems to be, politically targeted. I understood the sign “clean-up” in areas of the city where it arguably could have impacted driving visibility. The signs in a raised flower bed on the private property of a house they had to take specific time to pass by? Not so much.
Part of Panto’s clean and safe campaign, Nowroski should’ve been canned with the building collapse. Wonder how much he kicked into the campaign
Bernie. 2 questions:
Who pushed Nowroski to enforce this ? Why was it done during this year’s campaign? Your thoughts.
While it was certainly disturbing to get a notice of violation from city code, I cannot blame Steve Nowroski entirely. I DO blame the city's solicitor at the time the ordinance was created. The Solicitor should have known that restricting free speech on someone's own property has enough case law to choke a horse and the Solicitor, if doing his/her job, should have strongly advised against voting to adopt it. If the ordinance wasn't there in the first place, Nowrozki would have no basis to weaponize his code enforcement officers. As usual, people attack the symptom and overlook the root cause. As soon as I complained and contacted thevACLU PA and Sal Panto, this was resolved... for now. But I am not stopping until the ordinance is rescinded. I also believe that the people behind this should all suffer the maximum disciplinary action permitted as attacks on our most basic and treasured right was assaulted for political purposes. And from what I'm hearing, it wasn't Sal Panto pushing this. As an aside, I found it strange that there was one mayoral candidate (again, not Sal Panto) whose signs were everywhere EXCEPT the front yard just before the code enforcers were sent out. But I guess that was just a councidence.
Don’t believe everything Sal says, him speak with forked tongue.
9:05, If you want to accuse Melan of persuading Nowroski to do this, then please just say so and stop beating around the bush, especially since you're already anonymous. Of course, you have very little evidence to back up that claim. It requires all kinds of guessing, which is not fair to Melan or Nowroski.
Here's what we do know. Nowroski left Forty Fort under a cloud. About a year later, a building collapsed on Northampton Street as a person walked by it. Complaints had been made to code for several months before this happened. Panto then promoted this guy. Criticism of the solicitor is fair but the buck stops with the guy at top and the city council who conforms his appointments.
The First Amendment is first for a reason. It is our most important individual liberty. I can think of nothing worse than an officious government that interferes with core political speech about who deserves election. This is very serious and completely unAmerican.
I am concerned that code officers are abusing their power. If Bruno's comment here is accurate it means that code went by several very visible infractions on their way to violate the constitutional rights of her parents. I have spoken in the past to a property owner who has told me horror stories about discriminatory enforcement of code, including code officers who allegedly offer to buy properties they find blighted. I declined to go with this story because I believe this property owner must have been mistaken or misunderstood. I'm no longer sure.
There are two underlying issues here - the First Amendment and discriminatory code enforcement.
Incidentally, Panto was victimized by this as well. His own campaign signs were plucked.
Whoever made this decision to remove…why now, when it hadn’t been enforced in prior years? Why this year?
"Who pushed Nowroski to enforce this ? Why was it done during this year’s campaign? Your thoughts."
Interesting question that forces me to speculate as much as the anonymous commenter who tried to place the blame on Melan. I'll have some additional facts tomorrow.
Bethlehem Township used to make you get a permit to put up signs. A person I was supporting paid the sign permit fee and he was told if all his signs were taken down after the election his fee would be returned. We kept track of every yard sign and made sure all the signs were removed by the property owner. There was no violations. Lo and behold, the township would not return the fee because they claimed there was a sign out by Rt. 22 with our candidates name on it. We explained that the sign was not one of ours and had no idea who posted the home made campaign sign. It took a threatening letter from an attorney to get the permit fee returned. They found one sign that wasn't ours and used that as evidence to keep the permit fee. We eventually got the fee returned but what a fiasco.
If the signs are on private property with the landowners permission, It is "free speech". If the signs are on private property without the landowners permission it is a violation and not part of free speech and can be removed.
I’m no fan of Sal, but I really don’t believe either candidate, pushed for this to happen, I might guess that a rogue code officer possibly took this on their own to benefit the candidate they are supporting. FOP lodge and AFSME are supporting Melan
Petty Patti Bruno - always the victim - please go away already
Someone from the City is offering to buy these buildings? Ha! We all know who that is. The new Lawrence Marra's of Easton.
Lots of Melan signs on College Hill.
Wonder if Sals feeling the heat.
"Of course, you have very little evidence to back up that claim. It requires all kinds of guessing, which is not fair to Melan or Nowroski."
What evidence do you have that the code enforcement employees are Nazis? Not very fair to guys that are out there doing their job. I wouldn't expect them to be 1st amendment experts, especially considering the boro passed an ordinance that was reviewed by the solicitor.
Tell Bethlehem Township to shove their permit fee up their asses!! Apparently they aren't aware of the constitution.
Does this mean I can keep my
Go Satan signs up
"What evidence do you have that the code enforcement employees are Nazis? Not very fair to guys that are out there doing their job. "
You are absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong. I updated my post to apologize.
The Power of Big Government
Communities have been sued successfully in the commonwealth over unconstitutional restraint of free speech and violation of the First Amendment…..this should be of concern to all involved in this act.
We're all hypocrites and use poor judgment on a daily basis. What makes the difference is when we can admit openly admit the fact. Much appreciated and much respect.
Mayor Panto and his cronies in city hall are turning Easton into a police state. They have plastered the city with license readers and cameras. If you leave your Easton home and go to Heritage Day they can track your every movement. The only thing they wont know is whether you do a number one or a number two in the porta potty. If your home is near one of these cameras then make sure to pull down your bedroom shade. The code inspectors are just like the parking enforcement jerkoffs. They should be made to wear brown uniforms so they look just like the Nazis they pretend to be.The good thing about Panto loosing the upcoming election is that all or most of the idiots in his cabinet could be replaced by the incoming mayor.
No chance panto loses
Personally I think the political signs a an eye sore and should be managed and monitored. But I also understand the perception of why they serve a purpose. I think rule need to be in place and they need to be managed. If they are on common public property with the bounds of x number of feet of the center line a property owner should have to allow any and all politicians to place signs in their yard if they put up one themselves. It they are beyond that public right of way distance then it is on them who they put up. If signs are place in a public right of way and cause vision impairments then they should be removed and disposed of. If signs remain up for x amount of time (I say beyond a week but am open to options) the associated poster should be fined. IN general the signs should have to adhere to the commonly utilized signage rules for such things as yard sales. All signs should be required to have the posters name, home number and home address on them. None of this BS that you get to hide behind something unknown. And heck pay teenagers by giving to their sports /clubs to go around and remove signage not meeting legalities.
Have you seen how many Panto signs are in the Hill? My guess is Melan feels a little out matched when walking his own neighborhood.
So what most people seem to be say9ing is that any business may post any sign it wants and it should not be a problem as people who place political signs there should be no rules?
This seems to be a problem that politicians want to be treated differently then any other individual or organization. I call BS as politicians always think they are above the other rules and those that radically support either side feel the same way. IF there are rules on the books the politicians and their supporter should have to adhere to the same signs regulations.
I tried to add a 4 x 8 painted sign to my business and it took almost 5 months of approvals. Even trying to put up a temporary one generate potential fines and impacts. But yet I see political signage of a similar configuration all over the place. I again call BS on political favoritism. And I am not talking about either party just political crap in general.
10:32, It is not special rules for politicians. It is an individual's right to express himself with core political speech. Your speech is commercial speech, not political. You are entitled to some First Amendment protection, but not the same as permitted for political speech upon which democracy is based. You are also entitled to procedural safeguards.
Under Ethics code for the city of Easton, can a full time code office director own or be part of another business which is similar in nature and receive compensation or would this be a conflict of interest?
9:07, I believe investigation is warranted. It could be his private entanglements are incompatible with the proper discharge of his official duties.
An investigation would be interesting. Wonder what Norowski and Melan talk about at Cake and Corolla every day? Or at Daddy's place. Melan and Norowski are always together and I'm surprised people haven't made the connection sooner.
If a code administrator gives a $2,000 donation to a political candidate, is that against City of Easton Code of Ethics?
BernieOHare to 5:40: permitted.
Panto has a history of sending invitations to his political events to directors and department supervisors, putting them in a precarious position. I know personally from some of them that they felt obliged to either attend or at least give a donation to the campaign.
At 9:54 you are probably right but Panto never thought he would lose to Goldsmith, never underestimate any election
Bernie you "You are entitled to some First Amendment protection, but not the same as permitted for political speech upon which democracy is based." Isn't that the same as saying that political and politicians get different treatment? I would say your own words prove the point that 10:32 was making about different rules being applied.
7:51, No it is not the same at all. Political speech is a right for the benefit of a citizen, not politiciAN. We still live in a democratic form of government, and democracy is meaningless unless citizens can freely express themselves. Commercial speech is protected, but the government can regulate more closely to protect public health, safety and welfare.
Post a Comment