The court concluded that "City Code Sections 19.23.035(A)(1)and (4) we unconstitutional."
The cited violations of both the 1st and 14th Ammendments of the US Constitution.
"The court retains jursisdiction to review any changes adopted by the City Council for compliance with this Order and with the restrictions of the First and Fourteenth Amendments"
This was an completely unethical and illegal move by the past council brought forth by Joan Bennett and Leon Garcia. During the campaign, Ed West badgered in both print, and at the council, candidates who were "violating this ordinance". Joan Bennett criticized me in the paper saying " all he has is big signs". Others were highly critical of me for suing the city, including one woman who wrote a letter to the editor who lives in Vallejo!
This ordinance was politically motivated to damage my and others reputations, to diminish our ability to get our name out, and to limit our ability to campaign with inexpensive signage. This Ordinance, passed at election time, was ILLEGAL, UNETHICAL, and STRUCK DOWN by A FEDERAL JUDGE who demonstrated so by the Facts!
We now have a council that wants to commit 12 million dollars to buy an office building and do improvements- for INTERIM OFFICE SPACE;
No, not work on the Oat Hill for which 1 million dollars was taken from two developers, some would say, and I would be one of them , probably in bad faith, almost extortion in order to move forward...
No, Not work on the wastewater treatment issues, including a failing system, and one that is inadequate for our needs....
No, NOt work improving the distribution system of water, when we have leaks that are costing us thousands of dollars and potentially contaminating our water supply...
No, NOT working on moving forward with a new high school, or improving crosswalks for kids to get to school
No, NOt working on COMPLETING sidewalks, for which the city was just sued for handicap access....
NO, THIS ARROGENT BUNCH WANTS TO BUY A MOMUMENT TO THEMSELVES CALLED CABERNET VILLAGE, AND SPEND MILLIONS MORE TO RENOVATE IT TO THIER LIKING!
YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT TO COFFEY, AT LEAST SHE VOTED NO!!!!!
Geez, what Happened to town center? Oat Hill, Crosswalks, water, urban limit line----
ONE MILLION A WEEK
This council wants ONE MILLION for every week they have been a council to Spend! 12 Weeks, 12 MILLION!!!!!!!
I agree with ac94503 I am DISGUSTED with the COMPLETE lack of VISION , PRIORITIES , and FUDICIARY DUTY OF THIS COUNCIL SO FAR!
Maguire Prevails On Sign Lawsuit
Moderator: Issa
Forum rules
Please follow the terms of use as illustrated on the main page of the forum. Only registered users may post in this forum. Classified posts and events must be posted in the Classifieds and Events forum. Thank you.
Please follow the terms of use as illustrated on the main page of the forum. Only registered users may post in this forum. Classified posts and events must be posted in the Classifieds and Events forum. Thank you.
-
Paul Maguire
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:46 pm
- Location: American Canyon
- Contact:
WOW!!!
Apparently, my mother was right. If you can't say anything nice about someone don't say anything at all!
Mr. Maguire won this one!
I remember the "sign patrol" during the last election. I thought it was ridiculous to spend so much time on "signs". Mr. Maguire took it one step further to prove a point. And the Court agreed. Case Closed!
This City is lucky he didn't sue us for lets say $12 million dollars...
As I have stated before, I am discusted with the arrogance and self serving current council.
A building is not what is needed to be accepted in Napa Valley.
You need community leaders with "Common Sense". You just need the right people to represent this community and unfortunately...we don't ( in my opinion ) have that yet!
Mr. Maguire won this one!
I remember the "sign patrol" during the last election. I thought it was ridiculous to spend so much time on "signs". Mr. Maguire took it one step further to prove a point. And the Court agreed. Case Closed!
This City is lucky he didn't sue us for lets say $12 million dollars...
As I have stated before, I am discusted with the arrogance and self serving current council.
A building is not what is needed to be accepted in Napa Valley.
You need community leaders with "Common Sense". You just need the right people to represent this community and unfortunately...we don't ( in my opinion ) have that yet!
Mr. Ross
AmCan political sign debate not over, officials say
Judge struck down 90-day ordinance
By DAN JUDGE/Times-Herald staff writer
Article Launched: 03/08/2007 06:21:05 AM PST
City officials say they will ask a federal judge to reconsider his ruling that an ordinance restricting political campaign signs in American Canyon is unconstitutional.
The ordinance adopted last August dictates that campaign signs cannot be displayed until 90 days before an election. It also bans the signs from being in the public right-of-way and regulates how long they can remain after an election.
The judge gave the city 180 days to address the "constitutional defects" of the law.
"I can tell you right now that we're going to make a motion to reconsider the order," City Attorney William Ross said.
I guess I'm confused here because I would think further action regarding this case would have to be voted on by the Council prior to any more motions being filed. The decision was just handed down so what "City Officials" is this article referring to? I guess $74K just wasn't enough of the tax payers money to spend on this suit.
Maybe the City should take the Judge's advice and save us all some money and fix the "constitutional defects" in this law.
Judge struck down 90-day ordinance
By DAN JUDGE/Times-Herald staff writer
Article Launched: 03/08/2007 06:21:05 AM PST
City officials say they will ask a federal judge to reconsider his ruling that an ordinance restricting political campaign signs in American Canyon is unconstitutional.
The ordinance adopted last August dictates that campaign signs cannot be displayed until 90 days before an election. It also bans the signs from being in the public right-of-way and regulates how long they can remain after an election.
The judge gave the city 180 days to address the "constitutional defects" of the law.
"I can tell you right now that we're going to make a motion to reconsider the order," City Attorney William Ross said.
I guess I'm confused here because I would think further action regarding this case would have to be voted on by the Council prior to any more motions being filed. The decision was just handed down so what "City Officials" is this article referring to? I guess $74K just wasn't enough of the tax payers money to spend on this suit.
Maybe the City should take the Judge's advice and save us all some money and fix the "constitutional defects" in this law.
-
Paul Maguire
- V.I.P.
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:46 pm
- Location: American Canyon
- Contact:
Re: Maguire Prevails On Sign Lawsuit
American Canyon City Council was given 180 days to correct the violations of the US Constitution in the sign ordinance, way back in March of 2007. In June of 2008, an election was held, and candidates continued to worry about what they can and cannot do with signs, where they can put them, when they can put them up, and so on.
THe court ORDERED the city to correct this within 180 days. But yet, over 365 days later, the city is still grappling with the issue.
It is regretful that anyone running for office would have to deal with such uncertainty.
Meanwhile, while a few in this city were loudly critical of my lawsuit in which justice prevailed, what is most unfortunate is that the city still has not realized the very important aspect of CLARITY in the law , giving equality to all candidates. The political posturing and loud rhetoric that was heard during the last election for the city council and mayor candidates was fueled in part by the implementation of an unconstitual law during the middle of an election cycle.
Hopefully, while the city council once again puts in changes in the ordinance it is apparently now working on, (again in the middle of an election cycle), the law will be constitution, clear, and fair to ALL candidates.
THe court ORDERED the city to correct this within 180 days. But yet, over 365 days later, the city is still grappling with the issue.
It is regretful that anyone running for office would have to deal with such uncertainty.
Meanwhile, while a few in this city were loudly critical of my lawsuit in which justice prevailed, what is most unfortunate is that the city still has not realized the very important aspect of CLARITY in the law , giving equality to all candidates. The political posturing and loud rhetoric that was heard during the last election for the city council and mayor candidates was fueled in part by the implementation of an unconstitual law during the middle of an election cycle.
Hopefully, while the city council once again puts in changes in the ordinance it is apparently now working on, (again in the middle of an election cycle), the law will be constitution, clear, and fair to ALL candidates.
-
MeadowsGuy
- Historian
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:17 am
Re: Maguire Prevails On Sign Lawsuit
We are all desperately in need of good leadership at City Hall. Perhaps the "wake up" call has started. Please keep us informed of anything else going on. I was told by Tom Orlando (Our First Mayor) that there is an election every two years and the founders knew that the people need good representatives. Thanks.