The Indianapolis Star printed my letter addressing the laws regarding political signs in today's edition. Having a letter printed is always good, so I am without complaint. I do find it an interesting and fun exercise to compare the original letter with what was printed.
There was some editing here, but there were some main points I wanted addressed, and they pretty much showed up:
- Signs in one's yard are not only a free speech issue, but also a property rights issue.
- As such, any kind of sign should be permitted, so long as it does not create a hazardous situation, such as blocking traffic visibility.
- As such, the signs should be permitted at any time. Current laws should be repealed.
- Make sure the phrase 'Libertarian Party' is included prominently.
"The Star described the Libertarian Party's yard sign lawsuit against the City of Indianapolis as a defense of free speech, but it is also an important defense of property rights. Residential property is not owned by the City, but by the homeowner, and City policy-makers should always keep that respectfully in mind.
So, it should be a cause of concern that the City's solution to this issue is to set a limit on the number of signs homeowners can place in their yard. Will there now be sign police to make sure everyone obeys? It is safe to say that most residents would rather see City resources used in more productive and sensible ways than having sign police driving up and down streets counting the signs.
As the Star reported, Indianapolis is not the only municipality with restrictions on signs. My hometown of Fishers is among those that restricts free speech and property rights by ordinance.
Upon moving to Fishers, I found it odd that parents with children in athletics, cheerleading, or music had tacked signs to their garages rather than placing them in the front yard where all could see them more plainly. I was stunned to learn that a family's pride in their student had to take a backseat to compliance with the law, as do political signs. Curiously, 'for sale' signs are permitted.
What message does this send our children? That it's okay to sell the home, but not to control its use? That it is more important to obey than it is to express family pride or political views?
The municipalities are sending the wrong message. Indiana communities need to do the respectful thing by repealing the ordinances and regulations against political and other yard signs in homeowner properties."
For context, here is the letter as printed by the Star:
"The Star described the Libertarian Party's yard sign lawsuit against the city of Indianapolis as a defense of free speech, but it is also an important defense of property rights. Residential property is not owned by the city, but by the homeowner, and city policy-makers should always keep that respectfully in mind.
It should be a cause of concern that the city's solution is to set a limit on the number of signs homeowners can place in their yards. Will there now be sign police to make sure everyone obeys? It is safe to say that most residents would rather see city resources used in more productive and sensible ways than having police driving up and down streets counting the signs.
As The Star reported, Indianapolis is not the only municipality with restrictions on signs. My hometown of Fishers is among those that restrict free speech and property rights by ordinance.
The municipalities are sending the wrong message. Indiana communities need to do the respectful thing by repealing the ordinances and regulations against political and other yard signs in homeowner properties."
It is a shame that the really tasty paragraphs were chopped. Not only is it fine rhetoric, but it is factual that the school related signs are relegated to the garage while for sale signs are permitted in the front yard. I chose to highlight these fact for consideration by parents. They will immediately get the absurdity of the laws and regulations when they see them in this light.
No comments:
Post a Comment