Feckless feds slap Times Square’s billboards

When was TS not wall-to-wall neon? At least now there’s not the porn that dominated TS for decades.

Obama said he would “fundamentally change America”, he meant it and he meant it in every possible way.

There’s a delightful aspect to this: New York City forced to experience that which they foist on the rest of us. At the same time, and even as a conservative, I agree with Ladybird on this: are there ANY limits to “advertising space?” Must EVERYONE’S view be destroyed at any moment by someone with more money?

How about looking at it from the aspect of "are there ANY limits to Federal Governmental span of control".

I understand your sentiment, but it is an example of how we have given up our Freedoms, one "good cause" at a time.

The Constitution has no "Noble Cause" clause and our emotional opinions have allowed it to be subverted by a lot of "good intentions".

Sorry, no, my eyes are really bad this morning! Who is it?

I wish NYers could decide what Times Square looks like. But it was Guiliani and Bloomberg who destroyed it - I think we could have cleaned it up without turning it into Tokyo with a stupid pedestrian mall - in one of the heaviest traffic streets in the city. Grrrrr......

But the feds have no place in this argument.

These are ideas with which you may disagree, but it seems to me I wouldn't let a Trump build a wall around your house.

Oh, Puhleeze!

In most cases, that's a farcical argument. I tire quickly of people that complain about what is around them and refuse to pay for it - actually want gubbermint to pay for it or use eminent domain to just take it.

... that's a farcical argument. I tire quickly of people that complain about what is around them and refuse to pay for it...

The "argument" is in fact the foundation of all Law, which deigns to protect not the strongest, but the weakest among us. Right or wrong, it is illegal for me to buy or rent the house next to yours and make it a toxic waste disposal site. At the same time, right or wrong, it was perfectly legal for the "Beautification" advocates in government to take the government-owned "Eisenhower Interstates" and regulate their use as advertising spaces, for the benefit of "the people." Who owns Times Square, anyway? Hardly you, hardly SAMSUNG and JVC, or in this case Burnett, Ogilvy, etc. What about the people who live and work there, pay taxes there? Are they not entitled to a voice? If the property owners want the signs, and city government wants the signs, the signs should stay. However, if signage falls legally under some federal jurisdiction, and is subject to federal law - and further if these actions are supported by locals which I suspect they are - then the law reigns. Do you honestly think Obama gives a rat's ass about Times Square? He is paying attention to local money and owners in Market 1. You see, this is what most bothers me about so many of our fellow conservatives: they're all about "local rights" and "states rights" and "individual rights" until it interferes with their own ability to buy the Law. At least left-wingers know they are hypocrite national-socialists!

To golux:However, if signage falls legally under some federal jurisdiction, and is subject to federal law - and further if these actions are supported by locals which I suspect they are - then the law reigns.

You see, this is what most bothers me about so many of our fellow conservatives: they're all about "local rights" and "states rights" and "individual rights" until it interferes with their own ability to buy the Law. At least left-wingers know they are hypocrite national-socialists!

And the sad thing is you cannot discern between actual damage to a homeowner and having to look at something "garish/ugly" in a business district.

I guess you think that it is a good and right thing that something as banal as signage should fall under Federal law because the Federal government can hold them hostage by denying highway funds. You seem to have missed the part that there are guidelines, etc., that the Feds set up vs. laws and the punishment for displeasing them is to force them by turning folks against them via the threat to withhold funds - that's not rule of law, that's extortion.

If you want to throw out some silly-ass "hypocrite national-socialist" tags out, you should probably be looking in the mirror when you do it - you obviously have an opinion based on an emotional need to limit the dispersment of Neon in signs and equate that with "it's fine for the Feds to step in and twist arms"

There is a difference between the government's role to "prevent" harm" and it's non-role (which it uses to whittle away at individual freedoms) "do good". You want it to do what you consider being "good" and twist it to "preventing harm". Your false argument and stance is exactly how the Constitution has been watered down and the Freedom of the People has been eroded. You think that because the Feds have honed their theft of the People's money to the point that they can spread the wealth for a 1,001 different 'benevolent" causes, that they should automatically have overarching power to "Make things pretty" in a business district in a City of a State because they offer cash to maintain the roads.

The fact that they have added signs and stuff off the roads they assist with maintaining would tell a rational person that they will use any means possible to expand their power - much as the EPA can come in and "regulate" my property if a heavy rain leaves a big puddle that drains into local drainage.

You are the "national socialist" and have been so brainwashed that you really don't see it. Take your emotional baggage and hide under your bed because if we ever get back to the Constitutional Representative Republic the Founders set up for us, you will not like it...

Then they can purchase the property in question and ban the signage ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY!!

Hmm. I don’t think you understand. You seem to think I am in some way emotional about the issue. If it is against the law for the Federal Government to mess with the signs, that is fine with me. Frankly, I don’t really care one way or another because I am not a New Yorker. However, evidently, it is not against the law for the Government to mess with the signs, and New Yorkers don’t seem to care. On another note I don’t really see this as an issue that is comparable with EPA overreach, but we surely agree that the Federal Government has been out of control since Appomatox, that Johnson was a symptom, and that the government-educated “American” sheeple generally like it that way and vote for more soma when they can.