can you vote issues not parties?

[sirs]

Considering the ban was facilitated by a political rally, I think we can safely go with the former

[BT]

Considering the ban was facilitated by a political rally, I think we can safely go with the former

Not really.

First of all there is no ban on carrying signs at a rally. So the article you posted is certainly misleading.

Secondly the purpose of the resolution was to clarify policy for city hall personnel. Apparently, even though there were existing laws on the books dealing with the display of signs on city property, enforcement was haphazard at best.

 (a)     No person shall erect, place or maintain a sign in the City, except in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
(7)     Signs carried, waved or otherwise displayed by persons either on public rights-of-way or in a manner visible from public rights-of-way. This provision is directed toward such displays intended to draw attention for a commercial purpose, and is not intended to limit the display of placards, banners, flags, or other signage by persons participating in demonstrations, political rallies and similar events.

 (     Signage on publicly-owned land or inside street rights-of-way except those signs erected by the City, County, State or Federal Government.
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Michigan/coldwatermi/codifiedordinancesofcoldwatermichigan?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:coldwater_mi

Lets set some definitions.

Resolutions set policy. Ordinances make law. The action in question was a resolution and does not have the weight of law as there are usually no penalties prescribed in resolutions.

http://www.cabq.gov/council/frequently-asked-questions-faq/frequently-asked-questions-faq#differ

The resolution simply states that no banners may be erected in the park. There is no statement saying signs can not be carried in the park, therefore no rights have been abridged.

So what do they mean by erected. What that means is attaching the banner to a pole, temporary or otherwise or taping to a monument or other city owned or built structure. And if such a sign were to be put up according to existing ordinance it must be done by city personnel. So what that means is any signage in the park that is attached to a pole or structure must not only be installed by  city personnel but would indicate that it was a city sponsored event.

In 2010, Plaintiffs informed the City that they were going to display a banner at
Four Corners Park that would announce an upcoming TEA Party. Plaintiffs? red, white, and blue
banner stated, ?Branch County Tea Party . . . July 31st . . . 1:00 pm.? Plaintiffs requested
permission to use the City?s poles to display their banner.
http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/Complaint--CommonsSensePatriots--Filed.pdf

The actual resolution in full:
Resolution No. 10-31 states in full as follows (emphasis added):
WHEREAS, the ?Four Corners Parks? at the main intersection in the City of Coldwater, at Marshall Street and Chicago Street have been used, from time to time, for the display of banners promoting various activities, organizations, and gatherings; and WHEREAS, the City of Coldwater has never adopted a policy regarding such displays; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Coldwater has determined that, in the interest of beautifying the Four Corners Parks area, and to maintain the historical appearance and integrity thereof, display of banners in the Four Corners Parks should not be allowed:
NOW THEREFORE, be it
RESOLVED that hereafter the display of banners or other signs of any type or
description whatsoever in the Four Corners Parks in the City of Coldwater is
hereby forbidden.

So basically what the resolution says is that the city will not hang banners for any event other than city sponsored events. 

As a side note, what is interesting is that the Tea Party group which advocates small government and fiscal responsibility is now costing the city thousands in legal fees claiming their rights have been diminished, which is clearly not the case.

My guess is the judge throws this one out. My recommendation is that the city attorney be reprimanded for not crafting the resolution to make it more clear the letter and intent of the resolution.

[Christians4LessGvt]

But big picture....isnt this so called "budget battle" a real farce?
I think in the end the budget negotiation led to a cut in the
size of the federal government by a hardly whopping 1%?
It's a joke!

[sirs]

Considering the ban was facilitated by a political rally, I think we can safely go with the former

Not really.

Yes really.  Minus the political rally, there would have been no lawsuit and no subsequent ban put in place

[BT]

The ban on private organizational signs erected on city property was already in place prior to the request by the tea party to erect one. The resolution simply clarified that that law would be followed.

The lawsuit is frivolous. And the reporting on the story certainly was devoid of the pertinent facts.

[sirs]

According to the article, the timeline has the ban going in after the lawsuit was filed.

A federal lawsuit claims a Branch County tea party group was denied the right to display banners and signs at a tea party rally at a public park in Coldwater because it was ?too political? and ?too controversial.? The Coldwater City Council then passed a resolution banning all banners and signs in that park

Is that a reporting error?

[BT]

According to the article, the timeline has the ban going in after the lawsuit was filed.

A federal lawsuit claims a Branch County tea party group was denied the right to display banners and signs at a tea party rally at a public park in Coldwater because it was ?too political? and ?too controversial.? The Coldwater City Council then passed a resolution banning all banners and signs in that park

Is that a reporting error?

At best it is incomplete reporting. The pertinent law covering signs on city property was in effect prior to that incident. The reason i know this is that updating online code books is expensive, and is usually done about every two to three years, for a town the size of Coldwater.

The link i provided states the codebook was current as of 12/31/2010. Ordinances require two public readings and there was no mention of the ordinance in the November or December 2010 Minutes, so that ordinance was passed prior to the resolution, which only requires one reading and was mentioned in the November minutes.

This is a perfect example of biased reporting, whether it be from the MSM or a newsletter closely aligned with the plaintiffs as was the case in this story.

[sirs]

According to the article, the timeline has the ban going in after the lawsuit was filed.

A federal lawsuit claims a Branch County tea party group was denied the right to display banners and signs at a tea party rally at a public park in Coldwater because it was ?too political? and ?too controversial.? The Coldwater City Council then passed a resolution banning all banners and signs in that park

Is that a reporting error?

At best it is incomplete reporting. The pertinent law covering signs on city property was in effect prior to that incident. The reason i know this is that updating online code books is expensive, and is usually done about every two to three years, for a town the size of Coldwater.

The link i provided states the codebook was current as of 12/31/2010. Ordinances require two public readings and there was no mention of the ordinance in the November or December 2010 Minutes, so that ordinance was passed prior to the resolution, which only requires one reading and was mentioned in the November minutes.

This is a perfect example of biased reporting, whether it be from the MSM or a newsletter closely aligned with the plaintiffs as was the case in this story.

My question still seems unanswered....did the ban go in AFTER the original lawsuit was filed?  Yes, or no

[BT]

According to the article, the timeline has the ban going in after the lawsuit was filed.

A federal lawsuit claims a Branch County tea party group was denied the right to display banners and signs at a tea party rally at a public park in Coldwater because it was ?too political? and ?too controversial.? The Coldwater City Council then passed a resolution banning all banners and signs in that park

Is that a reporting error?

At best it is incomplete reporting. The pertinent law covering signs on city property was in effect prior to that incident. The reason i know this is that updating online code books is expensive, and is usually done about every two to three years, for a town the size of Coldwater.

The link i provided states the codebook was current as of 12/31/2010. Ordinances require two public readings and there was no mention of the ordinance in the November or December 2010 Minutes, so that ordinance was passed prior to the resolution, which only requires one reading and was mentioned in the November minutes.

This is a perfect example of biased reporting, whether it be from the MSM or a newsletter closely aligned with the plaintiffs as was the case in this story.

My question still seems unanswered....did the ban go in AFTER the original lawsuit was filed?  Yes, or no

The original lawsuit was filed 4/7/2011. The resolution which established city policy and did not deny anyone any civil rights was passed 11-8-2010. So the answer to your question is no.

[sirs]

Then you're saying the reporter lied.  I wonder why he hasn't been fired, as of yet.  Or perhaps he has, and we simply don't know of it. 

[BT]

Then you're saying the reporter lied.  I wonder why he hasn't been fired, as of yet.  Or perhaps he has, and we simply don't know of it.

His future is in the hands of his employer. It really isn't any of my concern. He had a narrative to sell and he tried to sell it. What percentage of the population would have an inkling as to the difference between a resolution and an ordinance.

[sirs]

Never suggested it was your concern.  If he lied, he should be fired.  That's all

[BT]

Never suggested it was your concern.  If he lied, he should be fired.  That's all

Odds are pretty good he will get a raise.

Why?

Because he isn't a reporter. And what he did was send the story viral with his newsletter blurb.

This is the way it works. The City of Coldwater has insurance that covers lawsuits like this. So the people who will decide what level of defense to put up will be claims adjusters.

Odds are when the insurance company attorneys reach a certain level of billing a settlement offer will be put in play. The attorneys for the plaintiffs will be compensated for their time, the plaintiffs will get a small sum to make them go away and the city will no longer be involved in a lawsuit and won't have to make an admission of guilt. My guess is that at that point the Mackinac Center for Public Policy will receive a tax deductible donation to help them carry on their good works.

[sirs]

Never suggested it was your concern.  If he lied, he should be fired.  That's all

Odds are pretty good he will get a raise.

MSM media is that screwed up, you say?

[BT]

Never suggested it was your concern.  If he lied, he should be fired.  That's all

Odds are pretty good he will get a raise.

MSM media is that screwed up, you say?

Your source for the story was not MSM.