Recent Comments
 | That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
 | Eric Kirk on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
| Eric Kirk on Online Petition to the Board o… |
 | suzy blah blah on North Coast Environmental Cent… |
| suzy blah blah on North Coast Environmental Cent… |
| That Other Anonymous on Online Petition to the Board o… |
 | Narration on North Coast Environmental Cent… |
| suzy blah blah on North Coast Environmental Cent… |
113 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 6, 2012 at 4:31 pm
S
Yeah, feed the rich enviro lawyers and their flunkies as they trash SoHum homesteaders behind their backs while taking their monies.
April 7, 2012 at 8:40 am
Anonymous
Homesteaders should take note that estelle is on the side of the PL McMansion/Pro Wal-Mart crowd. If you all think that those developer interests, and their idea of property rights are the same as yours, well, it is a very sad day here in River City.
The campaign sign that she is calling an advertisement, has brought estelle to a new low in the principle and integrity departments. Another poster made a comment somewhere about “birds of a feather”, I am so sad.
April 7, 2012 at 9:01 am
Eric Kirk
What campaign sign are we talking about, and why would she call it an “advertisement?” What is wrong with the sign?
April 7, 2012 at 9:36 am
Anonymous
The campaign sign on the bill board in Fortuna. On the news this morning she called the campaign bill board an “advertisement”. Fortuna has regulations about campaign signs. Rather than taking the high road and pulling the campaign bill board, she is calling it an “advertisement”. It is a sleazy way of operating. Like the person who added the 20 votes to estelle on your poll. It is sad to realize that estelle, her campaign, and followers lack integrity and principle. Go to the KMUD archives eric, and listen to this mornings news.
April 7, 2012 at 9:38 am
Eric Kirk
Oh, I think I heard something about a sign put up early. I didn’t realize it was a billboard.
Does an advertisement actually get around the rule? It may be that the city of Fortuna can’t do anything about it unless it’s a yard sign. But then what constitutes a billboard? If I charge a campaign money to allow them to put a sign in my yard, would it constitute an advertisement?
Well, I’ll leave it to Fortuna to sort all that out. I’m actually kind of surprised those ordinances are deemed Constitutional anyway. Yes, there is a lesser standard for time, place, and manner restrictions, but apparently it only applies to campaign signs which suggests content-based regulation rather than time, place, and manner.
It is a problem however, if one campaign is trying to follow the rules and the other isn’t. If the ordinance is unclear, it needs to be clarified one way or another.
April 7, 2012 at 10:23 am
Anonymous
clif is clearly trying to follow the rules.
estelle is not.
You ask a good question of why would she call it an “advertisement”?
I would like to know why Terri Klemetson didn’t ask her the same question?
I am glad there are ordinances on political signage. Otherwise we would be inundated 365 days a year with political signs. estelles campaign bill board shows just that. Visual pollution.
April 7, 2012 at 10:43 am
JP
Cliff is all about rules. That’s the problem.
April 7, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Anonymous
Disagree. Rules are necessary. Ask the environmentalists who want Cal Trans to follow the rules. Ask the Put ‘em in the Sun folks who want rules on diesel grows. Ask Sanctuary Forest/Tasha McKee who want rules on when water can be taken out of the Mattole. Speed limits are rules. What about the rule of don’t drink and drive? What about rules that regulate clean air and water? Clif is not ALL about rules, in my mind.
April 7, 2012 at 1:45 pm
suzy blah blah
-calling it visual “pollution” is extreme. I havent viewed this one yet, but i truly enjoy looking at billboards. Theyre often colorful and give a positive vibration to the atmosphere. Thats their purpose, to attract one’s attention, in other words –to be attractive, duh. If you dont appreciate the art maybe you need a few lessons in aesthetics. If you dont like the message, ignore it, nobody’s brainwashing you or forcing you to buy or vote in a certain manner. In suzy’s opinion they add an interesting element to the visual field. Unless, of course, theyre done in bad taste, but that is very seldom the case because the firms that put them up look to professional artists that are well trained the philosophy of art and beauty.
April 7, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Mitch
I especially love knowing that I now have on opportunity to gamble from an iPad. The artist involved in that one probably got a masters degree.
April 7, 2012 at 2:38 pm
suzy blah blah
-when it comes to billboards and advertizements and campaign signs etc., suzy doesnt pay much attention to the message, i just enjoy the aesthetics. I remember one about an ipod or ipad or something, Mitch, maybe it was the same one you saw, it had a very lovely sunset scene in vermillions, turquoise, and ambers, with gorgeous passages of sun reflections on the surf –in high definition. Something like that can really lift one’s spirits.
April 7, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Anonymous
clif is not only about rules. Rules are necessary. Maybe you should talk to Sanctuary Forest/Tasha McKee about rules they want for when a person can take water out of the Mattole. Maybe you should talk to all the environmental groups who want Cal Trans to follow the rules and file an EIS. How about people who want rules for diesel grows. Should we trash the rules on logging, clean air, water, etc. Do you have rules for your children? Maybe they should not listen to you.
suzy, bill boards take away from nature and it’s beauty. the estelle bill board is hard on ones eyes.
April 7, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Mitch
No, that sounds like the one for the local funeral home. I agree it’s lovely.
April 7, 2012 at 4:53 pm
suzy blah blah
-Harold and Maud agree.
April 7, 2012 at 8:40 pm
Anonymous
The city has received complaints over the billboard. Great way to introduce yourself to Fortuna. Waltz right in and break their laws.
April 7, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, again, Estelle’s team obviously believes that advertising a campaign on a billboard is exempted. Without reading the ordinance, I have no idea.
April 8, 2012 at 12:21 am
Eric Kirk
Okay, I found the provision in the Fortuna Zoning Code applying to political signs.
Section 17.95.180, subparagraph D allows for signs without permits. Paragraph b refers to political signs on private property.
One political campaign sign not exceeding in four square feet in area or four feet is permitted on private property. These signs shall be removed within 10 days after the election. Such signs shall not be erected prior to 30 days before the election.
I didn’t see any specific provisions for billboards, but there is a process for permits for signs which don’t fit into any of the listed categories. The process includes provisions for design review, etc. So it may be that an “advertisement’ may be purchased using an ongoing permit for a billboard, and therefor no content-based regulation so long as it is in compliance with the terms of the permit. I see no specific provision regulating the content of permit-based signs other than the discretion of the design review process, but I don’t know what terms the permit was granted upon.
Apparently it hasn’t been done in the past, which may be why some people are complaining. Assuming the city interprets the ordinances as per the Estelle campaign, I’ll be curious to see if the City Council revisits the ordinance, or the billboard space will be routinely purchased by future campaigns.
Anyway, the Fortuna Code is online here:
http://friendlyfortuna.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=607
Research done and eggs hidden, the Easter Bunny is going to bed.
April 8, 2012 at 8:36 am
Anonymous
Advertising is promoting something. It is a campaign sign no matter how you slice or dice it. It is the same campaign signs she has down here. She has turned that bill board into a campaign sign. Period.
Is she paying for the space?
Once again estelle shows she has no principles, no integrity. That bill board is now a very big campaign sign. An eyesore. My partner was in Fortuna the other day, and said the blue on the campaign sign looks like something left over from a nuclear power plant.
April 8, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Dave Kirby
I have worked on a number of sign crews over the years. I am not sure that out signing your opponent really makes a great deal of difference in the outcome of an election. Its generally believed that the main benefit of signs involves making your staff and supporters feel good. Signs can cut both ways. If the neighborhood jerk has your yard sign out front it could damage your brand. Local and State regs. can make placement tricky. For instance there are two different sets of rules for placement on Cal Trans rights of way with freeways. Placement regs. on a “Landscaped” freeways are much more restrictive than a non landscaped freeway. Back in “98″ Jeanne Tunison-Campbell was running for Superior Court judge. She had three times the signs out that her opponent had. She lost. In small market politics people either know the candidate or know someone who does and make their selection at a more personal level. At least that has been my experience.
April 8, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Eric Kirk
Rex Bohn also had many more signs than Chris Kerrigan, but lost badly.
Basically, signs are the lowest priority in a campaign. They don’t earn you votes, but if you don’t have them up, it indicates either lack of support or disorganization.
Of course, it amounts to an endorsement from the occupants of a home, which is why I think it’s unfair when landlords plop the signs on lawns of multi-family housing.
Signs on public right of ways have absolutely no meaning at all.
Your point about signs on lawns of jerks is well taken. I had a bumper sticker for a campaign on my car once when I accidentally cut someone off pulling out onto a road, and the driver slammed on brakes and honked for about 15 seconds (like he or she had never done it him/herself). I wonder if I blew a vote for my candidate.
April 9, 2012 at 12:53 am
Anonymous
Why didn’t the Democratic Central Committee endorse Estelle?
April 9, 2012 at 12:56 pm
suzy blah blah
If the neighborhood jerk has your yard sign out front it could damage your brand.
-yep, psychology 101, that’s why suzy always puts the other brand’s signs up in my yard, and their bumper stickers on my car.
April 9, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Not A Native
Now THAT’S funny.
April 9, 2012 at 4:35 pm
suzy blah blah
suzy, bill boards take away from nature and it’s beauty
-source?
April 9, 2012 at 8:32 pm
Anonymous
Read the Journal article on bill board blight.
April 9, 2012 at 11:22 pm
Eric Kirk
There’s a bit of a heated discussion on the billboard issue over at Heraldo’s.
http://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/fennell-flouts-fortuna-law/
And at the Journal’s blog, which includes a letter from the City of Fortuna to Estelle’s campaign.
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/blogthing/2012/04/09/vote-me-isnt-political-sign/
April 10, 2012 at 2:09 am
pathetic actually
you call that heated?
April 10, 2012 at 9:40 am
suzy blah blah
Read the Journal article on bill board blight.
-link please.
the estelle bill board is hard on ones eyes.
-it is NOT an “estelle billboard”.The billboard was there before her ad was put up and it will be there after it’s gone. So what your really saying is –it’s Estelle that’s hard on one’s eyes.
April 10, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Anonymous
No link. Hard copy.
That isn’t what I’m really saying. Funny that you said it though.
April 10, 2012 at 3:00 pm
tra
As far as the merits of the billboard, it seems to me that there are two questions:
(1) Does the Fortuna ordinance’s language on “political signs,” even apply to existing, permitted billboards? It looks to me like it doesn’t — Rigge’s “creative” interpretation notwithstanding.
(2) If the 40-day window and 4 square feet provisions actually DO apply to political messages on billboards, then is that Constitutionally acceptable or not? I doubt this question will even be reached, because I think the answer to question (1) is “no.” But just for the heck of it, let’s take a look at how the Supreme Court has ruled in similar cases:
Metromedia v. San Diego, 453 US 490 (1981) is the court’s only modern case on regulation of billboards (“offsite advertising”). The case produced five different opinions. Scattered among these opinions were five or more votes (a majority of the 9 votes on the court) for the following points:
* while the government has a legitimate interest in controlling the non-communicative aspects of billboards, First Amendment concerns place some limits on billboard regulation;
* commercial speech has less First Amendment protection than noncommercial speech;
* regulations on commercial speech are measured under the Central Hudson test [described above];
* the government’s interests in traffic safety and community esthetics are enough to justify a complete ban on offsite commercial billboards.
* San Diego’s sign ordinance is unconstitutional because it has two fatal flaws: 1) it allows commercial messages in certain places where noncommercial messages (advocacy) are not allowed; this is a violation of the principle that noncommercial speech is entitled to a higher degree of First Amendment protection than commercial speech; and 2) the ordinance results in the city showing a preference for certain kinds of noncommercial speech over other kinds of noncommercial speech; this was a violation of the principle that regulations may not be based on message content.
http://aalto.arch.ksu.edu/jwkplan/law/US%20Supreme%20Ct.htm
April 10, 2012 at 4:27 pm
tra
From the California League of Cities website:
I. Political, campaign and election signs.
Special rules for “political signs” or “campaign signs” or “election signs” are common in sign ordinances, and pose a major legal risk.
When challenged in court, political sign rules are almost always invalidated and the government is ordered to pay large attorney fee awards to challengers.
http://www.cacities.org/resource_files/28823.Cutting%20Edge%20Issues%20in%20Sign%20Law-Didital%20Signs_Exceptions%20to%20Bans%20and%20More.pdf
April 10, 2012 at 4:43 pm
tra
More from the piece on the California League of Cities website (page 24):
To defend themselves, cities need to do several things.
First, they need to convince the court that only commercial speech is involved and that if any noncommercial speech is affected, the effect is incidental and de minimus.
Second, they need to show that the statutory scheme does not favor commercial speech over noncommercial speech, a constitutional problem that has been labeled the “inversion problem.”
It looks like Fortuna’s ordinance, if applied to billboards, would have a fatal “inversion problem.”
So it seems that for starters Mr. Rigge and whatever attorneys he was relying on owe Fennell and her campaign an apology. And then they’d better get busy re-writing their ordinance. Fortunately, the California League of Cities has a helpful suggestion:
The easiest way to do this is to insert a “substitution clause” in the city’s sign regulations. A substitution clause allows noncommercial messages to be placed on any lawfully erected sign where commercial messages are allowed.
For example, the billboard that Estelle’s message appears on.
April 10, 2012 at 6:05 pm
tra
The following is from the majority opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Metromedia vs. San Diego case:
As indicated above, our recent commercial speech cases have consistently accorded noncommercial speech a greater degree of protection than commercial speech. San Diego effectively inverts this judgment, by affording a greater degree of protection to commercial than to noncommercial speech…Insofar as the city tolerates billboards at all, it cannot choose to limit their content to commercial messages; the city may not conclude that the communication of commercial information concerning goods and services connected with a particular site is of greater value than the communication of noncommercial messages. 18 [453 U.S. 490, 514]
Furthermore, the ordinance contains exceptions that permit various kinds of noncommercial signs, whether on property where goods and services are offered or not, that would otherwise be within the general ban…Although the city may distinguish between the relative value of different categories of commercial speech, the city does not have the same range of choice in the area of noncommercial speech to evaluate the strength of, or distinguish between, various communicative interests. See Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S., at 462 ; Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, [453 U.S. 490, 515] 408 U.S. 92, 96 (1972). With respect to noncommercial speech, the city may not choose the appropriate subjects for public discourse: “To allow a government the choice of permissible subjects for public debate would be to allow that government control over the search for political truth.” Consolidated Edison Co., 447 U.S., at 538 . Because some noncommercial messages may be conveyed on billboards throughout the commercial and industrial zones, San Diego must similarly allow billboards conveying other noncommercial messages throughout those zones.”
See section V:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=453&invol=490
In other words, a city cannot disallow non-commercial billboards (including political billboards) where it allows commercial billboards, and it cannot choose to allow some kinds of non-commercial billboards (for example religious billboards) while disallowing other kinds of non-commercial billboards (such as political campaign billboards).
April 10, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Dave Kirby
Tra….Take a deep breath and find your center. Me thinks you doth protest too much. Three posts in a row and windy ones at that. I haven’t seen the billboard but the feedback I hear at the store from those who have has been negative. And that’s in Gville.
April 10, 2012 at 7:19 pm
tra
Dave,
My breathing is just fine, but thanks for your concern (trolling).
Meanwhile, a claim has been made that Fortuna’s ordinance on campaign signs can and does apply to messages on billboards, and an accusation has been made that Estelle’s campaign is breaking a valid law. I have presented arguments to the contrary. Care to comment on the merits?
April 10, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Dave Kirby
My concern is not about the legality of the billboard its about the effect of it. So far I think its unfortunate overkill. To me it says we have more money than sense.
April 10, 2012 at 7:57 pm
tra
A billboard ad seems like a perfectly normal and reasonable response to the fact that — thanks to his status as the incumbent, and his family’s cider business — Clendenen probably still has somewhat greater name recognition in the Fortuna area than Fennell. Is it a cost-effective way for the Fennell campaign to increase her name recognition? I have no idea. Apparently Fennell’s campaign must think so. But unless you accept the (false) premise that there is something illegal or unseemly about putting a campaign message on a billboard, I don’t see what the issue is.
Keep in mind that it’s an existing billboard, and if it didn’t have Fennell’s message on it it would just have some advertisement for a casino or a car dealership or something like that. So I’d be willing to bet that the only people who find it offensive are those who already support Clendenen.
April 10, 2012 at 8:19 pm
Eric Kirk
tra – A billboard isn’t going to make the difference. Her walking the streets and knocking on doors will. The billboard has taken her off message.
As to the legality of the ordinance, I’ve done some research as well. As far as I can tell, outright bans of campaign signs have failed, while “time, manner, and place” controls have been upheld – even when the regs distinguish between political and commercial signs. When content is not the issue, but merely “time, place, and manner,” then all that is required to uphold the regulation is a showing of a rational basis. If there is content control, then you have to show a compelling community interest to justify the distinction. I haven’t read all the cases yet, but I suspect that because a political campaign can lead to a rash of signs all over the place, when it is unlikely to occur for commercial speech or other messaging, it may very well be upheld as a compelling community interest. There are so many of these laws on the books, I think it would have been heard from the mountaintops if all of them had been rendered unconstitutional.
I’m sympathetic to the name-recognition argument, but as any seasoned campaigner will tell you, local campaigns don’t usually have a problem with name recognition.
She hasn’t asked my advice, but given that Fortuna residents tend to distrust Sohummers as people who flout rules and laws, she probably should avoid even the appearance of flouting their law. I would take down the sign, apologize for the misunderstanding, and continue to walk the neighborhoods and focus on phone banking, radio ads, etc. That’s how Chris Kerrigan beat a superiorly funded campaign of Rex Bohn a few years ago in Eureka, and she has superior funding behind her. She doesn’t need this controversy to take her off message.
April 10, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Anonymous
Geez tra. It is an existing bill board that estelle has turned into a very large campaign sign. It is the same campaign signs she has down here. To call it an advertisement is di-ingenious.
April 10, 2012 at 9:26 pm
tra
” I haven’t read all the cases yet, but I suspect that because a political campaign can lead to a rash of signs all over the place, when it is unlikely to occur for commercial speech or other messaging, it may very well be upheld as a compelling community interest.”
It’s a existing billboard. Billboards require a permit, so there isn’t going to be any uncontrolled “rash of signs all over the place.” So much for that argument. Got any others?
Of course before we even reach the Constitutional arguments, the question arises as to whether the rules that Rigge cited, which were contained under the heading “signs that do not require a sign permit” even apply to billboards in the first place, since billboards are regulated under the separate heading “signs that require a sign permit.” Got an opinion on that?
As far as the political considerations, while some Fortunans (mostly those already supporting Clendenen) may process this as “SoHum scofflaw flouting Fortuna rules” I suspect there are at least as many who will process this as “Overreaching city bureaucrat bluffs and blusters in service of the incumbent.” And of course the vast majority probably don’t give a rip one way or the other about the billboard.
So no, I don’t think this “nontroversy” is taking her off message at all. if anything, it just serves as a helpful example of Estelle’s willingness to politely but firmly stand up and challenge overreaching bureaucrats when they make highly questionable claims as to what the law allows and/or requires them to do.
April 10, 2012 at 11:17 pm
Eric Kirk
That plays well in Sohum, where everybody revels in “speaking truth to power” and all that. People in Fortuna just want to earn a dollar on a good day’s work and live in relative peace in a community fit for their families. They passed their ordinance with the intention that they would be free from the barrage until a month before the election, and whether it and hundreds of other municipal laws like it ultimately survive legal challenges, they probably aren’t interested in whether someone can get around it with legal technicalities. From what I understand the sign has drawn numerous complaints, and the “bureaucrats” are responding accordingly.
I’m pretty certain that the only Fortuna residents who read this blog, Heraldo, or the NCJ Blogthing have mostly already made up their minds about how they’re voting, so I’m not trying to spin this into a controversy. The sign itself accomplished that, and while I do hope Clif wins, I certainly hope the difference isn’t over something stupid like this.
But then I think the slogan is a problem itself. I don’t think Fortuna is really into electing someone to “fight.” I think they want someone to govern. This thing is only going to underscore the cultural divide, and I don’t think it’s productive.
As for name recognition, Estelle has about half a dozen billboards up and down the 101 corridor up there, in spots which have been occupied by Rodoni signs in the past. She doesn’t need this argument.
Now to share some of my research.
Ladue v. Gilleo – Absolute ban of political signs from residential areas not Constitutional. Reasonable TPM rules are permissible.
Baldwin v. Redwood City – Size limits valid
Verilli v. Concord – Size limits not valid.
Arlington County Republican Party vs. Arlington County – limit on number of signs per property not valid (Fortuna ordinance limits to one sign).
Those are Appellate Court decisions. There are a slew of trial decisions which uphold and overturn laws, but none are precedent. The only California case I found was Maguire v. American Canyon in which the Federal Court ruled against the ordinance. I don’t know the details however, other than short descriptions, but if that decision had been appealed and upheld, it would have resolved the Fortuna ordinance (and the Humboldt County 90 day ordinance) unconstitutional.
I found references to municipalities caving when the ACLU threatened to sue, which could mean that they acknowledge the potential illegality of their ordinances, or they simply don’t want the fight for political or financial reasons.
And I went back to the Fortuna Code to see if they can get around the “content neutrality” requirement. There are similar size and number restrictions on realty sale signs, but no comparable time limitations.
1. Signs Not Requiring a Sign Permit. The following signs do not require a permit:
a. Real Estate. One real estate sign advertising the sale or lease of a parcel of property or structure thereon, when the sign is not over four square feet in area. Such signs must be located on the property they advertise. Real estate signs advertising commercial, agricultural, or industrial property for sale or lease, or residential property in excess of one acre, shall be limited to 32 square feet in area;
b. Political. One political campaign sign not exceeding four square feet in area or four feet in height is permitted on private property. These signs shall be removed within 10 days after the election. Such signs shall not be erected prior to 30 days before the election;
I also noted something else, which may have been the work of a clever drafting lawyer. The provision actually defines the signs which don’t require permits. Apparently, a commercial sign, other than a conforming realty sale sign, requires a permit, unless it fits into the non-permit sign scheme. So therefor, it’s not that the sign is banned if it’s for a campaign and it’s not in the time period, but that it requires a permit.
And with regard to permitted signs it reads: 2. Signs Requiring a Sign Permit. Unless exempted by subsection (D)(1) of this section, no person shall erect, enlarge, alter, relocate, or add to a sign or sign structure in the city unless a sign permit has been issued and the sign conforms to the following standards:
And then it lists the exemption requirements for each zone – I’m not sure which zone is applicable. But apparently billboards can’t just be changed without a permit review, and I wonder if this is what Mr. Riggs was talking about when he wrote to Estelle: “The same ordinance section limits the size of campaign signs (i.e. signs that advertise a candidate who is running for office) to not greater than four-square feet or four-feet in height. This applies equally to signs mounted on private commercial property, banners hung on a building’s exterior, or glued onto a roadside billboard. In all cases, a political campaign sign permit (no charge) is required to identify the proposed location for approval by city staff.”
But if billboard owners within Fortuna routinely change ads without obtaining new permits, there’s a question of selective enforcement based upon content.
Again though, I hate to see a campaign bogged down in silliness. It’s just a billboard. She has no shortage of options to get her name and platform out to voters. This isn’t the fight she should be looking for.
April 11, 2012 at 12:47 am
Anonymous
“From what I understand the sign has drawn numerous complaints”
I would be willing to bet that the vast majority — and perhaps every single one — of those “numerous” complaints actually came from people who are already committed to Clendenen’s campaign.
And again, the problem of the “onslaught” of political lawn signs is quite a bit different than an advertisement on an already-existing billboard, which is what we’re talking about here.
Other than those who are already committed to the incumbent, do you really think there are lots of Fortuna residents who are actually offended that an existing billboard has Estelle’s message on it, instead of another casino ad or car dealership ad, or whatever? I find that very hard to believe.
Seems way, way more likely that these “complaints” are just a tactic cooked up by some overzealous and/or jittery Clendenen supporters. And I suspect that among the few undecided voters who even take note of this “controversy,” most will recognize this silly bit of political maneuvering for what it is.
April 11, 2012 at 12:50 am
tra
That last comment was from me. Forgot to fill in the name and e-mail box. Sorry ’bout that.
April 11, 2012 at 1:22 am
tra
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California:
CITY OF ANTIOCH v. CANDIDATES’ OUTDOOR GRAPHIC SERVICE
For the reasons stated the City of Antioch’s 60 day time limit on the posting of political signs is unconstitutional. The motion for a permanent injunction against enforcement of the ordinance is granted.
http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19821015_0000088.NCA.htm/qx
Also note that the 9th District, in recently upholding new billboard regulations in LA, noted that the city was not allowed to ban non-commercial billboards anywhere it permitted commercial billboards, and was not allowed to permit certain kinds of non-commercial speech, while disallowing other kinds of non-commercial speech.
See the third-to-last and second-to-last paragrpahs in this article:
http://www.kmtg.com/resources/legal-alerts/ninth-circuit-weighs-billboard-regulations
April 11, 2012 at 1:40 am
tra
“This isn’t the fight she should be looking for.”
I very much doubt there will be any “fight.” I predict that the City will drop the issue — and if they’re smart they’ll eventually amend their ordinance to adopt the kind of “substitution clause” that allows any non-commercial advertisement on any otherwise-legal existing billboard where commercial advertisements are allowed, therefore solving the existing “inversion problem” where commercial messages are given more protection than non-commecial messages (including political messages).
April 11, 2012 at 7:03 am
gpf
Eric says: “As for name recognition, Estelle has about half a dozen billboards up and down the 101 corridor up there, in spots which have been occupied by Rodoni signs in the past.”
This says a lot about the dynamics of this election. Clif was elected with 36% of the vote last election because of the very odd three-way race.
My bet is he will come in with a smaller vote this time.
Eric says: “She (Estelle) doesn’t need this controversy to take her off message.”
Eric, there is no controversy. What I hear is the whining of children as they’re being thrown out the door.
I believe Estelle cleared it with the Fortuna attorney as soon as she received a protest from Mr. Rigge. Keep trying Eric, but Fortuna voters will yawn you away.
April 11, 2012 at 8:20 am
Anonymous
This is just the tip of the iceberg of what the BOS would look like if estelle was a supe. She doesn’t understand, or believe in rules. And the supes do have rules and laws they HAVE to follow. estelle showed her lack of understanding on KMUD when she sadi “I just don’t understand why the BOS can’t release the information….” when talking about the lawsuit/public records request by humcpr.
Is estelle just gonna thumb her nose at rules and laws and regulations?
April 11, 2012 at 8:21 am
Eric Kirk
gpf – Actually, he was elected with 40 percent, much higher than either of his opponents. Not that it matters for this election, but I do wonder why you and others keep throwing out the innacuracy.
As for the issue, well, it’s not my campaign. Just keep assuming that all of the complaints are from partisan Clif supporters, and let’s see where it goes. I did speak to someone in Clif’s campaign, and they intend to abide by both the letter and spirit of the law. They’ll start posting in Fortuna 30 days before the election.
April 11, 2012 at 9:54 am
gpf
Eric, I apologize for my error: 40%, not 36%. I guess I got it mixed up with the straw poll in an earlier thread. I think it is safe to assume that all the whining is coming from partisan Clif supporters.
The spirit of the law? As far as I can tell, the ‘spirit’ is that Fortuna residents don’t want to have to look at campaign signs until 30 days before election. Now Estelle’s perfectly legal sign is visible to some Fortuna residents. But so are some of her other signs that are just outside the city limits. It looks to me that even though they are legal, these signs must also be violating the ‘spirit’ of the law.
Therefore, it appears that Clif will not post campaign signs visible to Fortuna residents, even though outside the city limits, until May 6, or else he will be in violation of the ‘spirit’ of the law.
April 11, 2012 at 10:05 am
gpf
Above I said “As far as I can tell, the ‘spirit’ is that Fortuna residents don’t want to have to look at campaign signs until 30 days before election.”
After a little more thought, it occurred to me that Fortuna residents don’t really want to see any campaign signs at all, but are reasonable, and have settled on 30 days prior to the election. It follows then that the spirit of the law is to have no campaign signs at all within or visible from Fortuna, right up to the election. Clif, follow the spirit!
April 11, 2012 at 10:14 am
tra
gpf.
That seems like a stretch. The Fortuna law, flawed though it most certainly is, obviously only applies to signs within City limits, so it’s stretching the idea of the “spirit” of the law to suggest that it was intended to actually shield Fortuna residents from seeing any signs posted outside City limits but which can be seen from within City limits.
Both candidates are complying with the rule about not posting lawn signs within City limits until 30 days before the election. Estelle’s billboard is the only difference, and from the research I have done it appears that she’s well within her rights to have her message on that billboard.
And, yes, I very much doubt anyone who is not already a Clif supporter is “outraged” about an existing billboard having a candidate message on it, rather than another casino ad, or car dealership ad, or whatever. If that’s the kind of nonsense Clif’s campaign is banking on to provide the margin of victory, I think they’re fooling themselves.
April 11, 2012 at 10:34 am
suzy blah blah
No link. Hard copy.
-just as i thought, you have nothing to say or to show that can defend or prove your points …
That isn’t what I’m really saying.
-nothing to say except insinuating remarks and inuendo. A nice example of the disengenuousness of the some of Cliff’s supporters. It’s shameful. And suzy says this as one who backs Cliff myself. I like his spirit. He’s a fine guy, and i have a personal affinity for him too because i raise apples myself. But all this smearing of Estelle that some of you are doing just backfires on Cliff’s uprightness and pure intentions. One thing i want to make totally clear here –it’s NOT Cliff or his campaign staff that’s bitching about Estelle’s strategies, it’s just a small fraction of his so called backers.
April 11, 2012 at 10:38 am
tra
If Clif’s supporters want to try to make a big deal out of this, I think it will hurt them more than it will help, because it will send the message that they’re more interested in trying to attack the challenger’s campaign than they are in defending the record of the incumbent. But maybe that’s the position some of them find themselves in, and if so they’re welcome to try to make a mountain out of a molehill if they want.
If the City is foolish enough to try to press its claim that they can apply lawn-sign rules to existing billboards, it looks to me like they would almost certainly lose. They’d probably lose on the 30-day rule for lawn signs, too, if some candidate in the future chose to challenge that rule (Estelle isn’t challenging that).
But as long as the City takes no further action on the billboard issue (beyond the “sternly worded letter” that they already sent), I doubt there will be any litigation coming out of this election cycle.
Still they would be wise to clean up the language in their ordinance before future elections, to guard against the possibility that they will encounter a candidate who won’t be as accomodating as Estelle has been on the 30 day rule.
Fortunately, it seems that there are some fairly simple solutions. The time constraints, size limts, etc., are apparently more defensible if the time period is a bit longer, at least as long as those constraints and limits apply equally to ALL “temporary” signs about date-specific events, not just election signs.
As far as billboards go, they can simply adopt a “substitution clause” that clarifies that it’s legal to place a non-commercial message (including a political/electoral message) on any existing billboard where commercial messages are allowed. Meanwhile, just as with the lawn signs, they might be able to have some kind of time limit on electoral ads on billboards, as long as the same time limit applies to other events, not just to elections.
It looks to me like those few modifications would bring the City’s sign regulations into line with Constitutional requirements.
April 11, 2012 at 10:44 am
tra
“One thing i want to make totally clear here –it’s NOT Cliff or his campaign staff that’s bitching about Estelle’s strategies, it’s just a small fraction of his so called backers.”
I suspect you’re right, Suzy, and my last post should have referred to “a few of Clif’s supporters.” Most of them, presumably including his closest advisors, are probably smart enough to realize that this kind of nonsense won’t help his campaign.
April 11, 2012 at 11:06 am
gpf
tra, yes, my interpretation of the spirit of the law is a stretch. it is impossible to define the spirit of the law as being seperate from the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is subjective and open to interpretation by everyone, and everyone is correct. The written law is the only law that exists for everybody.
If one is abiding by the letter of the law, as it is written, they are usually abiding by the spirit of the law as defined by most people. If not, change the law.
Estelle has a lot of respect for local traditions, and has worked closely with diverse people and organizations, each with their own set of rules. She paid for a campaign advertisement of a billboard that was perfectly within the letter, and therefore the spirit of the law.
Interpretations of spirit can be a real stretch.
April 11, 2012 at 11:25 am
Eric Kirk
Clif has been smart enough to stay out of this. It’s really a matter between Estelle and the City of Fortuna. We’re discussing a North Coast Journal report and a request from the City to remove a sign the City deems in violation of its zoning code. Since that report, certain Estelle-supporting bloggers have been freaking out about it. I made some inquiries, and from them I arrived at the conclusion that this is probably not helping Estelle with Fortuna voters. To the degree that it will have a negative impact, I can’t say. If it was my campaign, I would have removed the poster when the City asked me to and argued about it later, after the campaign. But it’s not my campaign, and since I’m not a resident of Fortuna, it’s really not my business. Apparently, from what I’m guessing based on the responses on three blogs, the poster will remain in place unless the City decides to take some action. Most Fortuna voters do not frequent the three blogs, and they will only know that she has a big sign up two months before Clif has any signs up, and whether that has an impact, we may never know.
TRA – you say it’s not a big deal, but your extensive responses on three blogs now suggest that you believe it’s a very big deal. And the lashing out at Clif’s campaign, which has nothing to do with any of this, really does remind one of the line from Hamlet.
Like I said, most of the people who frequent these blogs have probably made up their minds by now – and certainly anyone who is willing to endure the long threads on this topic. I don’t believe I have many Fortuna readers. There’s no spin here that is likely to have any impact. My saying it may have impact, won’t make it have impact. Your emphatic denials that it will have any impact won’t negate any impact. I really don’t think the issue will decide the election unless it’s extremely close in which case a million different factors out of anyone’s control could win or lose it. So my advice is free and simple – don’t assume that what applies to Sohum applies to Fortuna. There are different political cultures involved, and when you’re an outsider you do as the Romans do. But maybe there are enough angry riled up voters in Fortuna who will see this daring blow against government bureacracy as a vanguard in the fight against the oppressive Junta of bureaucrats and urban hippies in Eureka. I really don’t know. But I don’t think so.
April 11, 2012 at 11:30 am
Anonymous
suzy blah blah
No link. Hard copy.
-just as i thought, you have nothing to say or to show that can defend or prove your points …
All you have to do suzy, is go to the market and get a copy of the journal and read the article about bill board blight. Does “prove your points” only count if there is a link?
April 11, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Anonymous
So I don’t get it. Is Estelle’s position that she followed the Fortuna law or that the law is inappropriate?
April 11, 2012 at 1:35 pm
tra
Eric,
I think you’re misinterpreting a few things. I don’t think this is important in terms of the outcome of the election, one way or the other. I don’t think there will be any large group of Fortuna residents riled up over this issue, on either side. My guess is that a few will be riled up on either side, primarily those already committed to their candidate, and that they probably pretty much cancel each other out. That’s just a guess, of course, but it’s a guess based on some past experience in campaigns, experience that suggests that arguments over this kind of stuff don’t create much of an effect one way or the other. I’m not assuming that what applies to SoHum applies to Fortuna in the same way — if I did, I’d probably believe that this little kerfuffle might play out to Estelle’s advantage in a significant way, but I don’t believe that.
I was prompted to look into the issue a little bit, partly because I saw that City was claiming that Estelle is overstepping valid rules, when from my existing understanding of First Amendment jurisprudence in that area, I suspected that it was in fact the City that was overstepping their powers. I put a few hours into looking into it in some detail, mostly because I find the issue genuinely interesting, and because First Amendment issues are near and dear to my heart, not because I think it’s of any real significance one way or the other to the outcome of this campaign.
I don’t think I’ve really “lashed out” at the Clendenen campaign, nor do I believe it’s very likely that anyone close to the campaign would waste their time orchestrating complaints. I do think it’s likely that most, if not all, of those who complained to the City are probably already Clendenen supporters, and that’s why the billboard bothered them in the first time. Of course I don’t know that for a fact (nor have I claimed to), it just seems more likely than not.
April 11, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Anonymous
Billboard Blight | North Coast Journal | Humboldt County
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/news/2012/03/29/billboard-blight/
April 11, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Dave Kirby
After all the spin and accusations, which I fully expect to continue right up til June, it seems to me that Johanna voters in the last election will be the key to victory. I have a fair amount of insight into past politics in the northern part of the district and I haven’t a clue as to how this will shake out. Roger Rodoni was about more than just CPR. Much of Johannas vote was actually a vote to honor Roger. It is not uncommon for the spouse of a deceased office holder to garner a significant number of votes and sometimes win in their own right. I suspect Rodoni voters were voting for the man rather than his policies. Roger said more than once that he was representing the “”extractive” industries. Timber, gravel miners,fisheries and with Johannas help the beef and dairy interests. I haven’t heard either candidate say where they stand regarding these folks other than the fact that they both support the Richardson Grove project which would benefit the extractors.
April 11, 2012 at 4:22 pm
tra
“So I don’t get it. Is Estelle’s position that she followed the Fortuna law or that the law is inappropriate?”
It’s a good question, because we’ve been discussing the Constitutionality of the law, but as I understand it, that’s not even the issue at this point. It could become the issue down the road, if teh City pressed its claim, and then neither side backed down, but first there is the question of whether the ordinance is being applied correctly in the first place.
First of all, Estelle made it clear that her campaign is committed to honoring the 30-day time-limit provision in the existing Fortuna rules about “temporary” political signs (lawn signs, signs in office windows), which are regulated in the Fortuna ordinance under “signs not requiring a sign permit.” Apparently a few got put up early in a couple of shop windows, and she made sure those were taken down, for which Rigge thanks her in the letter where he also asks her to remove the billboard.
As far as the billboard goes, I think the first question is whether the “temporary signs” rules (such as the 30-day limit, and the size restrictions) are even supposed to apply to billboards in the first place, since billboards are already-permitted existing signs that are regulated in a separate part of the Fortuna ordinance under the heading “signs that require a sign permit.” Apparently Rigge is claiming that the size and time-limit provisions apply to billboards as well as to lawn-signs and signs in shop windows, etc.
If it ever gets beyond that question, and the City decides to press its case (which I really dount will happen), then the question would arise as to whether Fortuna’s ordinance — as it is written and as they are interpreting it — is Constitutional in the first place. Hopefully it won’t ever have to get to that point, because ( I assume) neither party is really going to be interested in going to court over it, it will soon be a moot point since the 30-day period will kick in, and then the City will have plenty of time before the next election cycle to take steps to make sure their rules are clear and are Constitutionally valid.
April 11, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Anonymous
And what the voters will remember in June is that one candidate followed the rules and the other tried to bend them to suit herself.
April 11, 2012 at 5:30 pm
Not A Native
Eric, it was originally cited in another blog, so I assume you appropriated without attribution the reference to:
“The lady(tra) doth protest too much, methinks.”
But I’d like to believe you’re not a plagiarist and really meantMacbeth
“it is a tale
Told by an idiot(tra), full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
Or perhaps Julius Caesar:
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in (tra’s)our stars,
But in (himself)ourselves, that (he is)we (an)are underlings.”
The latte points up the evidence that obsessive or intoxicated personalities don’t have the introspective awareness needed to temper their impulses.
April 11, 2012 at 5:52 pm
Anonymous
“I’m sympathetic to the name-recognition argument, but as any seasoned campaigner will tell you, local campaigns don’t usually have a problem with name recognition.”
Not true whatsoever.
April 11, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Anonymous
“As far as the billboard goes, I think the first question is whether the “temporary signs” rules (such as the 30-day limit, and the size restrictions) are even supposed to apply to billboards in the first place,”
estelles political campaign sign is temporary on the bill board. It will be up for how many days?
April 11, 2012 at 6:51 pm
gpf
Anonymous asks: “So I don’t get it. Is Estelle’s position that she followed the Fortuna law or that the law is inappropriate?”
Estelle’s position is that she followed the Fortuna law. That is also the position of the Fortuna legal counsel she consulted with.
Eric is doing his best to muddy the water.
April 11, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Anonymous
“…and then the City will have plenty of time before the next election cycle to take steps to make sure their rules are clear and are Constitutionally valid.”
Before the NEXT election, sure. She’s not stupid, this is a very shady thing she’s doing to get the job during THIS election. I don’t think I’ve ever even seen a humboldt candidate rent a billboard. The size requirements alone in this case make it clear, her campaign billboard goes against the rules. Fair is fair, and she’s not playing by the rules.
April 11, 2012 at 8:22 pm
tra
Anon 6:40,
It’s a temporary message, but unlike a lawn sign, it’s not a temporary sign. Also unlike a lawn sign, the billboard is already a permitted structure where commercial advertising is always allowed, and there will be some message on it, whether it’s a campaign message or not. You may feel that these distinctions make no difference to you, but they have made a difference to the courts.
April 11, 2012 at 8:28 pm
tra
NAN once again demostrates the lasting popularity of the age-old strategy that says “if you can’t argue the facts, and you can’t argue the law, attack the messenger.”
NAN’s ad hominem attacks are predictable and boring, and they obviously don’t add anything to the discussion, but at least he’s good for a laugh.
Obsessively following other commenters around while obsessively commenting about these commenters’ supposedly “obsessive behavior” is pretty funny stuff.
April 12, 2012 at 8:10 am
Anonymous
tra,
Bill boards are signs.The bill board is bigger than political sign allowances.
April 12, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Ernie's Place
The lines that come to my mind is “A tempest in a teapot”. I’ve never seen so “much ado about nothing”. Does anybody want to talk about any REAL county issues? Roads? Pavement? Schools? The General Plan? River polution? Water loss?….
Debate at the Mateel. Clendenen V Fennell, 3:00 P.M. Sunday, April 15
April 12, 2012 at 12:41 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, I was going to complain that both campaigns made their signs blue. That confuses me. I might hold that against both of them.
Look at the First District race. Rex’s signs are orange and white, Annette’s are blue, and Cheryl’s are red. That’s how things should be done!
April 12, 2012 at 12:46 pm
tra
If you read the ordinance, it’s clear that the 4 square foot limit and the 30 day time limit apply to “temporary political signs” (like lawn signs and signs in a shop window). This language is in a section entitled “signs that do not require a sign permit.”
Billboards are regulated in a separate section, entitled “signs that require a sign permit.” There is no reference in that section to political messages on existing billboards being subject to the size or time limits that the other section applies to temporary lawn signs.
April 12, 2012 at 1:33 pm
pathetic actually
ernie, you’re on the right track, but i think i’d call it a “tempest in a THC pot” myself. har har
April 12, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Anonymous
“Does anybody want to talk about any REAL county issues? Roads? Pavement? Schools? The General Plan? River polution? Water loss?…. ”
And all the complications thereof, which can be attributed to sleazy politicians weazling their way into office by pulling shady publicity stunts like this lady is trying to do? Yeah, let’s discuss some real issues, starting with how bad politicians get the job in the first place.
April 12, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Eric Kirk
Anonymous 2:12 – If she wins (or loses) because of the billboard, then it’s really a bunch of lame voters to blame. Again, I doubt too many people will be thinking about the billboard come June, unless they have to drive by it – which is why I was suggesting it was in her best interests just to take the thing down. But even most of the people irritated by it will consider the whole gamut of issues before deciding how to vote.
If the “Fortuna attorney,” whoever that is, cleared the billboard (although I’ve only seen that reported by an anonymous poster) then that’s probably the end of the controversy as a legal matter. Whether it’s generating any bad feelings with Fortuna residents who are on the fence, we’ll probably never know.
I do have to say that I think 30 days is an inappropriate time limit. 90 days might be reasonable. But I think absentee ballots go out before 30 days. How can they decide if they haven’t been able to count yard signs?
April 12, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Anonymous
“If she wins (or loses) because of the billboard, then it’s really a bunch of lame voters to blame.”
You would blame the victims of unethical PR practices. If you are suggesting people are to assume candidates are all a bunch of backdoor con artists and should be looking into things like campaign sign requirements, then screw you. She knows exactly what she’s doing. Rather than politely comply and resume unquestionably legit campaigning, she not only refuses but sought legal council to protect her refusal. It’s how bad politicians get the job, praying on the ignorant and naive (but full of genuine care and concern enought to vote, and “VOTE” is like a modern mantra). Don’t blame the victims. You sound detatched from everyday life to, on one hand, encourage voting (and blame non-voters) then state voters should be doing all this unecessary research. Name recognition is HUGE on all levels of politics.
April 12, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, would you vote for somebody because you saw her name and mug on a billboard?
April 12, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Ernie's Place
Seeing that we going to continue with “signs”. I agree that the first amendment was designed to protect political speech above all else. And, a politician has the right to bellow his message from the tallest tower. But, there is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that says anybody has to listen, least of all agree.
There is an old axiom that “the customer is always right” we all know that isn’t true, but the reason for the statement is, you always want that customer to buy from you. If you prove the customer wrong they probably won’t be back. In this particular case, I wouldn’t have put the signs up, but I doubt that anybody would vote for me anyway.
It’s just like lawyers, nobody wants to have anything to do with them until you need one. Then they are your best friend. Maybe that’s the image that Estelle is going for, somebody that will put up a good argument for her constituents.
I would still be more interested in the real issues.
April 12, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Anonymous
Eric, how else does it have to be put: you would blame the victims of unethical PR.
April 12, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Anonymous
“I would still be more interested in the real issues.”
How do bad politicians get the job in the first place? What are some ways politicians can get a one-up in their campaign?
April 12, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Eric Kirk
Sorry, but if they’re basing their vote on a billboard, they’re not vicitms. They’re sheep.
The point is, I don’t think they will. I have more faith in their intelligence than you. That’s the difference.
April 12, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Anonymous
“Sorry, but if they’re basing their vote on a billboard, they’re not vicitms. They’re sheep.”
This statement coming from a guy who posts weekly about polar politics.
April 12, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Anonymous
” I have more faith in their intelligence than you. That’s the difference.”
Intelligence isn’t the issue at all. Deception is the issue. Information and lack of information is the issue. I have more faith in people’s trust and intentions than you.
April 12, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Ernie's Place
I wonder how long it would take the Supreme Court to decide on the right to put up campaign signs?
.
April 12, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Eric Kirk
This statement coming from a guy who posts weekly about polar politics.
There are politics in Antarctica?
Budda boom.
Intelligence isn’t the issue at all. Deception is the issue. Information and lack of information is the issue. I have more faith in people’s trust and intentions than you.
So they trust her more because she’s on a billboard?
April 12, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Anonymous
“I wonder how long it would take the Supreme Court to decide on the right to put up campaign signs?”
Is this the real issue you want to discuss? Well, in this case the rules have been set, and this would-be politician is intentionally milking semantics to essentially write a new rule…legalities aren’t the issue but much more along the lines of good old fashioned Right and Wrong are. This chick already refuses to play fair, she should not be in a position to direct our future in any way whatsoever.
April 12, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Anonymous
eric, you’re not even trying. If you are, and that’s the best you can think to respond…”baa-a-a–a-a-a”.
April 12, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Eric Kirk
This chick already refuses to play fair, she should not be in a position to direct our future in any way whatsoever.
This chick?
April 12, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Anonymous
That chick.
April 12, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Eric Kirk
eric, you’re not even trying. If you are, and that’s the best you can think to respond…”baa-a-a–a-a-a”.
Now I’m an Estelle groupie apologist. I just can’t win around here!
April 12, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Not A Native
It was reported that the “Fortuna attorney” is Bill Barnum. Now isn’t that birds of a feather flocking together? Its a stretch to call him a “Fortuna lawyer”, his office is in Eureka.
But technically, lawyers are licensed to practice statewide. So on a technicality, Estelle’s statement is simply a slight misdirection. Seems that Estelle has difficulties being direct and forthright. Most of what she says has to be interpreted(wink wink) or taken as code words. Maybe thats indiciative of SoHum culture, being vague and imprecise about specific facts to permit positive spins.
April 12, 2012 at 8:58 pm
gpf
The Fortuna City attorney Estelle consulted with was City attorney Dave Transberg(?), immediately upon receiving the ‘take down the sign’ e-mail from Mr. Rigge. Rigge sent the e-mail befor talking with the attorney.
The Beacon article has substaintial errors.
Estelle’s sign is legal and proper, This smells like Clif is initiating a negative campaign. but you predicted this, didn’t you Eric. Oh yes, “legitimate issues yada yada…”
I will sing my praises to heaven when we once again have a mature and qualified supervisor for our district!
April 13, 2012 at 3:23 pm
suzy blah blah
All you have to do suzy, is go to the market and get a copy of the journal and read the article about bill board blight.
-oh come on now. i didn’t hear you making any complaints against
billboards before Estelle’s ad went up. And now you want to connect her name with some so called “blight”. Use some common sense. Has Clif come out against the (legal) usage of billboards on our thoroghfares? No, i don’t think so. Tra’s point is well taken. sometimes dirty politics backfires. People like you can give our team an ugly negative image.
April 13, 2012 at 5:06 pm
Anonymous
I HATE bill boards suzy, all of them. Even before estelles sign went up. Last election cycle I did whine about signs and bill boards, FYI.
April 13, 2012 at 10:29 pm
suzy blah blah
Last election cycle I did whine about signs and bill boards,
-oh sure you did. Link please –haters and liars make up a portion of the body politic of whom suzy takes a debunkers stance against.
April 13, 2012 at 10:40 pm
tra
“I HATE bill boards suzy, all of them.”
So no doubt you’ve demanded that Clif take down his billboard on Hwy 101, which has been up for many years, if not decades?
Or maybe you’re just another poor soul who is suffering the ravages of “selective outrage disorder,” a common malady that is especially devastating during election seasons.
April 14, 2012 at 10:13 am
Eric Kirk
gpf – I’m not sure which errors you’re referring to, but I just read the article this morning and Tranberg is quoted as saying that the issue is not resolved. He acknowledged that there was a conversation with Estelle’s attorney Bill Barnum and that Bill stated his position. That’s it.
April 14, 2012 at 10:39 am
gpf
Eric, NAN, and others: there need be no mystery about this. Estelle’s phone numbers are readily available and all you have to do is talk to her and ask her questions. She will return calls, or you might just catch her. She is real easy to talk to, and can actually string together a series of sentences that make sense.
Tranberg is 100% correct. The ‘issue’ is not resolved until Clif cuts out this negative smear campaign. There is no legal issue involving the sign, and it doesn’t take a city attorney to state the obvious.
I can’t say how Estelle sees the situation, but to me this whole issue looks like a desperate and pathetic last ditch effort to save Clif’s sinking ship.
April 14, 2012 at 10:55 am
Eric Kirk
What does Clif have to do with the dispute between Estelle and the City of Fortuna? I’m not trying to be flip gpf, but this really has nothing to do with Clif. Clif did not make Estelle put up the billboard. Clif did not write the City Manager’s letter. And Tranberg made no mention of Clif. He simply denied what Bill Barnum said earlier in the article – that the issue was resolved.
Whatever your position on the ordinance, this has nothing to do with Clif. It’s strictly between Estelle and the City of Fortuna. And she may be right that the ordinance is unconstitutional. But Clif didn’t draft the ordinance either.
April 14, 2012 at 11:41 am
Anonymous
suzy and tra-
I am not playing your game. I put up the link to the Journal for you to read the article on billboard blight. If you think I am going to go back to a period about a year ago, and try to find “links” to my negative comments about signs and bill boards, you are both nuts.
April 14, 2012 at 11:42 am
gpf
Eric, you are very aware. this has nothing to do with legality, but with the ‘spirit of the law’ as interpreted by Mr. Rigge and people who are in an ‘intense discussion’. Not between Estelle and the City of Fortuna. You and I know and the readers know that your attempts to twist your last sentence:
“And she may be right that the ordinance is unconstitutional. But Clif didn’t draft the ordinance either.”
into the argument was to again muddy the water and suggest there is a legal issue involved, where there is so clearly not. Of course you could call Estelle, Tranberg and others for understanding but I guess you’re not into that right now.
Yes, there are errors in the Beacon, but even more important are omissions that would help make sense of this.
Everyone: Call people and ask them, or not. This is certainly nothing to get real upset about, and I guess should have been expected. It’s just that you always hope to see the best in people…
April 14, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Eric Kirk
gpf – I’ve got a splitting headache right now due to a very bad flu, but I’m going to take a few minutes to type in the quotation from Tranberg in the TS/Beacon (I can’t find the article online).
Tranberg confirmed that Barnum contacted him, saying that he believes the billboard is proper. Tranberg says he doesn’t believe the issue is resolved although he isn’t aware of any further action on the part of the city.
“The city asked her to comply with the ordinance and she said thank you but no thank you and that’s where it sits,” he said.
That’s what the article says. No, I’m not inclined to conduct my own investigation. According to the article, the city believes that she is not in compliance, and she believes she is in compliance, or to quote her from the article, “completely above-board. That is, by any definition, a “legal issue.”
She may be right. The city may be wrong. One of her supporters, TRA, has gone to great lengths to argue that the ordinance is unconstitutional, and I think he or she has made a compelling argument. And if you review my posts in this thread, I’ve said that. She (or TRA) may be right.
And there’s even a compelling argument that the ordinance does not apply to billboards. It may even be within the “spirit” of the ordinance, which may have been intended primarily to limit cluttering signs in residential areas. I don’t know the history of the ordinance, so I can’t intelligently comment on that.
What I’ve said is that the billboard is not important enough to her campaign to generate any bad blood with the City, and that I would have taken it down out of deference to the City and Fortuna tradition. But it’s not my campaign, and she didn’t take my advice. Fine. It’s no big deal. I’ve said that too.
What I do object to is the desperation in somehow trying to peg this controversy on Clif. Clif has made no public comment, and he’s not thinking much about this. He’s going to wait until May 5 or whenever to put up his signs. She can do what she wants as far as he’s concerned. End of story.
April 14, 2012 at 3:33 pm
gpf
Get some sleep.
April 14, 2012 at 4:46 pm
tra
I agree, I doubt the complaints to the City were part of any kind of concerted effort on Clif’s part, or on the part of his campaign. I think probably a few of his supporters (and maybe some other folks, though I doubt many) decided to complain to the City, and in response Rigge sent his “sternly worded letter.” Estelle’s attorney contacted the City’s attorney, and they each stated their position, and disagreed on the interpretation. But if the article is correct in saying that the City is taking no further action, then for all practical purposes, that’s the end of it.
I’m pretty well convinced that the law was intended to deal with lawn signs and signs in shop windows, not existing billboards. Even under that narrower interpretation it looks like it probably wouldn’t withstand a court challenge, but since no one’s challenging that aspect of it, it doesn’t really matter, at least for now. If the City tried to take legal action about the billboard, I think they would lose. I suspect the City attorney is aware of that liklihood, too, which is probably why they apparently don’t plan to take any further action.
As far as I can tell, the only “problem” at this point is that since the City is still claiming that the law applies to billboards, but apparently isn’t planning to do anything about it, that leaves the situation unresolved, at least in the minds of those who would like to use the issue to attack Estelle. Some will probably keep repeating the mantra that it’s an “illegal” sign, though it seems pretty clear that it isn’t (because it isn’t supposed to apply to existing billboards and/or because if it is that would be unconstitutional).
If some of Clif’s supporters think they can somehow hurt Estelles’ campaign by focusing on this highly questionable claim, I think they are mistaken, because frankly I doubt very many people who aren’t already Clif supporters actually care about the sign issue — there are so many more important issues out there — and in my experience this just isn’t the sort of thing that most voters care about.
However, as I’ve written above, I think the City would be wise to deal with this issue some time before the next election cycle, because otherwise they run the risk that some future candidate may sue the City if unconstitutional sign limits are enforced against them. And as I’ve written above, it does seem that there are a few fairly simple changes that could be made that would make their sign rules conform with First Amendment jurisprudence, while still meeting some of the goals that, presumably, were the reason for the ordinance in the first place.
April 15, 2012 at 7:54 am
gpf
TRA says, “.” Estelle’s attorney contacted the City’s attorney, and they each stated their position, and disagreed on the interpretation.”
Jeez…tra, had you given Estelle a call, you would have found out that Estelle herself consulted with the city attorney, in person, immediately upon receiving the e-mail from Mr. Rigge. The attorney told her that the sign was legal, and the city had no say over the sign.
tra, your explanation of what happened appears to be a fabrication, or a guess based on the Beacon article, with its gross omissions.
I realize you would love to argue the legal points, but I suspect the City attorney would agree with you every step of the way. No disagreement and no issue with the City. This is the reason the City is taking no action.
April 15, 2012 at 8:49 am
Anonymous
So, how about that EPIC party, talk about hijacking a thread, do as I say, not as I do?
April 15, 2012 at 11:01 am
tra
gpf,
I’m not trying to “fabricate” anything, but you’re certainly right that I’m just “guessing” how this all went down, based mostly on the media reports. Note that my little summary above begins with the words “I think probably…”
If Fortuna’s attorney did, in fact, tell Estelle that “the sign was legal, and the city had no say over the sign,” then I think it’s fair to say that Mr. Rigge owes Estelle and her campaign an apology, or at the very least a letter acknowledging the inaccuracy of his original letter and confirming that after consultation with the city’s attorney they have determined that the billboard is perfectly legal and her campaign is not in violation of the ordinance.
Because even if I were to call the City’s attorney and he confirmed that he had told Estelle that the sign was legal and the the City had no say over the sign, this would satisfy my own curiosity, but it wouldn’t set the record straight for the public at large.
The statement attributed to the City’s attorney in the Beacon article (which Eric quoted above)…
“The city asked her to comply with the ordinance and she said thank you but no thank you and that’s where it sits.
…certainly leaves the impression that Estelle’s campaign is in violation of the ordinance. Let me be clear: I don’t think she is.
But let’s face it, most voters aren’t going to contact the City’s attorney directly, they’re going to read what’s in the press, and for the most part believe what they read.
The accusation that Estelle’s billboard is illegal has now appeared in print in both the Humboldt Beacon and the North Coast Journal, as well as being repeated on KMUD, and on the Humboldt Herald blog. If that accusation is clearly false, then someone from the City (probably Rigge, and/or the City’s attorney) should put that in writing somewhere, publicly setting the record straight.
April 15, 2012 at 2:27 pm
suzy blah blah
-Annonomous, you are playing the game in that you claim an old hatred of billboards, older than the current tempest, if you will. And now without wasting any more time on this i just want to say that myself and tra are only being argument freindly, streamlining our points to be adjustable to reason and logic. Whereas you are just hating, and i suspect lying too.
April 15, 2012 at 3:05 pm
suzy blah blah
-in short, i continue to support billboards that are within the letter of the law. The “spirit” of the law is too fuzzy a concept for even broadminded people to come into agreement on. Estelle’s is a commercial enterprize licenced by the state of CA. I may not agree with what she says, but i defend to the death her right to say it.
April 15, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Eric Kirk
So, how about that EPIC party, talk about hijacking a thread, do as I say, not as I do?
The EPIC party was a lot of fun. Great food and great music. A good representation from Sohum.
I wonder if I bought the Goodman bottle of wine in the silent auction. Guess I’ll hear if I did.
April 15, 2012 at 6:00 pm
pointarenabasin
And the results of the straw poll conducted after the Mateel debate are in…ta da da dah…..
Estelle – 41
Clif – 20.