224 replies to this topic

[camay2327]

The problem is, Cal, that statutory interpretation rules would apply to say that the legislators obviously knew how to limit signs when they intended to do so, and since they did not do so for campaign signs there is no size limitation. I'm not saying that is what was intended, just that the rules of statutory interpretation could be applied the way Jeff is applying them.

Jeff, being a lawyer, can claim anything he wants to and will more than likely get away with it. It doesn't make it right.

[tessieca]

Jeff, being a lawyer, can claim anything he wants to and will more than likely get away with it. It doesn't make it right.

But probably legal.

[ducky]

The problem is, Cal, that statutory interpretation rules would apply to say that the legislators obviously knew how to limit signs when they intended to do so, and since they did not do so for campaign signs there is no size limitation. I'm not saying that is what was intended, just that the rules of statutory interpretation could be applied the way Jeff is applying them.

So, basically, the City of Folsom Election Sign Regulations as put forth on the city Website can't be enforced because, according to Mr. Starsky's interpretation, it would put the city at a liability for interfering with free speech?

By that interpretation, any candidate could put up a billboard-sized sign like the ones you see along Highway 50 in their yard or parking lot and not expect a visit from code enforcement in Folsom, couldn't they?

[Robert Giacometti]

The problem is, Cal, that statutory interpretation rules would apply to say that the legislators obviously knew how to limit signs when they intended to do so, and since they did not do so for campaign signs there is no size limitation. I'm not saying that is what was intended, just that the rules of statutory interpretation could be applied the way Jeff is applying them.

I bet Jeff took an oath of office to uphold the Citys Charter and ordinances and yet he is violating the very thing he swore to uphold!

What is he going to do, file a legal challenge against the very ordinance he swore to uphold? He has had 12 years to address this issue if he felt it was unenforceable, yet hasn't done anything, excpet thumb his nose at the very thing he swore to uphold!

What troubles me and probably many others, is if an elected official is willing to do this, how can they be trusted with anything they do regarding following our ordinances or when they tell us the Landowners paid for all the planning cost for S50 or that they had to waive fees to get Elliot to finish building the Mall?

[cw68]

Then I want to put up ten 100 sq ft signs saying "Don't vote for Jeff Starksy"

I bet he'd send code enforcement down in two seconds flat.

Tessica, it's a small issue, yes, but it highlights how he runs things. Code enforcement has taken down other's signs but not his. The guy is slimy.

[ducky]

Look at the structure of signs exempted from other FMC regulations:

13. Non-commercial sign(s) on private property, not within or over a public right-of-way unless authorized pursuant to Section 17.59.030(D), or over the roofline of any building and outside of any clear vision triangle as follows:

a. For residential property, 1 or more signs are permitted on any 1 parcel of land with a maximum combined sign area of 10 square feet and a maximum height of 6 feet.

b. For commercial property, 1 or more signs are permitted on any 1 parcel of land provided all such signs do not exceed a maximum combined sign area of 40 square feet and a maximum height of 10 feet.

c. Campaign signs pertaining to an election to any public office or ballot measure may be erected not earlier than 60 days prior to the election and shall be removed within 7 days following said election;

===========================================================================================
I think what Jeff is saying is that the specifications in subsections a. and b. are not included in subsection c. This could very probably lead a court or other interpreter to believe that the size limitation was expressly not intended to apply to subsection c. for campaign signs.

There are a lot of people spending a lot of time on what seems like are relatively insignificant issue. If you can't win an election on the merits, you pick on the signs and contributors?

It might be a small issue, but to me it's telling how a resident will be treated with a concern before the city council, especially if it would require business or development to make a compromise.

I'm not trying to win anyone's election for them, but I do vote and someone just lost that vote.

[folsom500]

There are a lot of people spending a lot of time on what seems like are relatively insignificant issue. If you can't win an election on the merits, you pick on the signs and contributors?

I becomes a larger issue when we are told by Folsom Code that the signs do indeed exceed the FMC and they have notified the owners.. and sending emails and voice mails to those 'owners' in this care starsky- he kicks it back to CODE and tells Code to bug off- and CODE then says they are too busy to deal with it...

It is also telling the both voice mails and email sent to multiple Starsky locations are never responded to - if it was as simple as he says it is - he could have easily answered said messages...

Also - AS YOU know - Folsom Elections are never based on Merit- they are based on Signage- simple - pathetic but true...

[giacomo]

Look at the structure of signs exempted from other FMC regulations:

13. Non-commercial sign(s) on private property, not within or over a public right-of-way unless authorized pursuant to Section 17.59.030(D), or over the roofline of any building and outside of any clear vision triangle as follows:

a. For residential property, 1 or more signs are permitted on any 1 parcel of land with a maximum combined sign area of 10 square feet and a maximum height of 6 feet.

b. For commercial property, 1 or more signs are permitted on any 1 parcel of land provided all such signs do not exceed a maximum combined sign area of 40 square feet and a maximum height of 10 feet.

c. Campaign signs pertaining to an election to any public office or ballot measure may be erected not earlier than 60 days prior to the election and shall be removed within 7 days following said election;

===========================================================================================
I think what Jeff is saying is that the specifications in subsections a. and b. are not included in subsection c. This could very probably lead a court or other interpreter to believe that the size limitation was expressly not intended to apply to subsection c. for campaign signs.

There are a lot of people spending a lot of time on what seems like are relatively insignificant issue. If you can't win an election on the merits, you pick on the signs and contributors?

Insignificant issue?? then why did Starsky offer up a $1000 reward for info leading to those responsible for "stealing his signs". Atthe council meeting he stated that 3 more signs were "stolen". I still think it's a bunch of grandstanding on Starsky part.

[tessieca]

Also - AS YOU know - Folsom Elections are never based on Merit- they are based on Signage- simple - pathetic but true...

Sad, but true. On the other side of that, the more publicity he gets from his sign issues, the more his name gets out in the public.

[tessieca]

I bet Jeff took an oath of office to uphold the Citys Charter and ordinances and yet he is violating the very thing he swore to uphold!

I'm not a Starsky advocate. What I tried to explain is that he can probably legally and objectively claim that he is not violating any ordinances. Why would he try to change something that he doesn't think requires a change? The fact that it is written the way it is and enforced in the manner it is only lends credence to the interpretation that it wasn't intended to limit size. Yes, cw, go ahead and put up your 100 foot campaign signs, just get a permit first.

It is problematic that like Folsom500 said, code enforcement agreed with his interpretation and then after talking to someone at city hall suddenly changed their tune. It's not Pete's fault, but the code says what is says and more importantly doesn't say what it doesn't say.

[camay2327]

Starsky, is bending all the rules.

[supermom]

There are a lot of people spending a lot of time on what seems like are relatively insignificant issue. If you can't win an election on the merits, you pick on the signs and contributors?

Tess: I have a slight issue with this. One competitor has been in office for years. His face on news next to events, etc. The other is a new comer. He does not have the same visibility or history. So, why is one allowed to use his office ( knowledge of developers) to garner more financial aid?

We make these sign rules to prevent newcomers from being squeezed out. Politics has to start somewhere and it should not be the payroll of real estate developers or government sponsored companies like gencorp

Politicking should be limited to specific number and sizes of signs, and commercials, monetary donations, and non-person entities should not be allowed to donate, at all!

[tessieca]

I don't have any problem with your statements about developers and funding caps.

The sign issue isn't related to developers. I looked at it as a lawyer to see why Jeff would think that he could do what he's doing, and back it up by referring to subsection c. Whatever the original intent of that section was, I was just letting people know that legally his interpretation is probably valid based on what it actually says (FMC doesn't include an intent section like state legislation would, so you can't look to intent without finding the taped discussion at the meeting when it passed). If Robert interpreted it the way Jeff apparently has, he could do the same thing and then sue if the city took his signs down. Probably too little, too late. If the plain language of a statute is ambiguous you have to look at other ways to interpret it. Like I said, the legislature (council) knew how to do size limitations because they did them in other subsections. Since they did not do so in subsection c., it leads to a possible conclusion that the size limitations do not apply. I'm not being a Starsky advocate, and I'm not commenting on developers, contributions, 2% increase in crime rates, etc. This OP was about "illegal" campaign signs.

If people want subsection c. to reflect a size limitation, propose that the city council add something like "..., subject to the size limitations in this section."

[Robert Giacometti]

I'm not a Starsky advocate. What I tried to explain is that he can probably legally and objectively claim that he is not violating any ordinances. Why would he try to change something that he doesn't think requires a change? The fact that it is written the way it is and enforced in the manner it is only lends credence to the interpretation that it wasn't intended to limit size. Yes, cw, go ahead and put up your 100 foot campaign signs, just get a permit first.

It is problematic that like Folsom500 said, code enforcement agreed with his interpretation and then after talking to someone at city hall suddenly changed their tune. It's not Pete's fault, but the code says what is says and more importantly doesn't say what it doesn't say.

Cmon Tess, what happened to you?

The City enforces things this way, because the Incumbants hire the CM and the CM directs Pete. I'll bet you coffee that if Roger had double signs all over town, he'd be getting calls by 8:15 am each day about them! The City is NOT going to enforce anything that is a determent to the existing council members seeking reelections!