They are REALLY stretching the ordinance here. It says “…within ten days of rather cessation of such business or sale of such product that renders the sign obsolete…”
The ordnance is clearly intended to cover business or private “For Sale” signs, not memorials, to prevent the town from being an eyesore. If they interpret it to cover memorials, then ALL war memorials and other civic memorial signs would have to come down. Does the town have a “Founded in 18XX” sign? That’s obsolete and has to come down. Do any city buildings have cornerstones with the founding date on them? Obsolete. Is there an IOOF sign on a building? Obsolete and has to come down.
What a loon who dreamt this up. No doubt some insane leftist.
The sign is obsolete? Did we miss a miracle here? Are the 3000+ alive again? Did the buildings fall back up? Did the airliners back out of the towers?
What’s the problem, is it creating more localized distracted driving?
I noticed the same thing. The homeowners should contact Pacific Legal Foundation and see if they are interested in helping.
The town council/mayor are so far over the line tromping on private property rights it’s ridiculous. I bet they would back down in a hot minute with the right legal encouragement. PLF backs a lot of ninnies down off the cliff when their legal counsel tells them they can’t afford the cost of Supreme Court litigation they are destined to lose.
“The ordnance is clearly intended to cover business or private “For Sale” signs, not memorials, to prevent the town from being an eyesore. If they interpret it to cover memorials, then ALL war memorials and other civic memorial signs would have to come down. Does the town have a “Founded in 18XX” sign? That’s obsolete and has to come down. Do any city buildings have cornerstones with the founding date on them? Obsolete. Is there an IOOF sign on a building? Obsolete and has to come down.”
The rules never apply to the rulers, you know that.
Take the mayor to court.
CAIR?