Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
In what IllegalSigns.ca's Rami Tabello is calling a "complete victory for Toronto," the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled that outdoor ad company Strategic Media, among other offenses, "over the last year or so...began erecting signs without obtaining permits." Not that great of a strategy, really! In spite of Strategic's not-yet-resolved constitutional challenge to the City's sign by-law (which we explored the legality of in May), the court ruled that the City can begin removing Strategic's many illegal billboards across Toronto. Councillor Howard Moscoe, who we like more and more every day, told the Post that "we will go out and take them down and charge them on the tax bill if they don’t take them down themselves."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTIP US OFF
Most Popular
Rocket Talk: Can Sunday Subway Service Start Sooner? (39)
This Shit is Steel Bananas (34)
Googling Toronto (28)
TTC Approves Fare Hikes, Extends Student Discount (26)
Polling Booth: The TTC Fare Increase (25)
Looking for Leonids (18)
Gender Studies Coming to a High School Near You (17)- Sound Tracks: “I Wish I Knew Natalie Portman” by k-os (16)
- Newsstand: November 19, 2009 (16)
Edgewater Hotel Sign Comes Down (15)
The city should charge them for the cost of removal and a fine at least equal to whatever fees the city would have received for the signs had they been legal.
This anti-sign campaign is ridiculous and offensive, especially in the current economic climate. People's injured leftists sensibilities are not valid grounds for taking away property and free speech rights. I hope the constitutional challenge is successful.
Free speech rights do not cover methods of communication. I can write an essay on botflies, for example, but I cannot spraypaint that essay on your face, much as I might like to. A company is allowed to say "buy this product!" but it can't put a sign on someone else's property without permission, which is what illegal signs come down to. I don't particularly care about illegal signs, but I'm not gonna champion them.
Also I'm curious how their campaign is "offensive" unless you yourself are, in fact, an illegal sign.
That's why mark referenced property rights. 99.9% of the time, these 'illegal' signs are put up with the property owners permission and a contract between those 2 parties.
The offensiveness comes from the fact that Illegal Signs is very 'choosy' as to who they go after. For example, drive down University Avenue and you will see a plethora of illegal first party signs owned by hospitals. Illegal Signs does not go after these people, only ones owned by advertising companies who employ hundreds of thousands (possibly millions through relationships) of people that are affected by these outdated laws. Instead of Rami wanting to work WITH the ad agencies, he wants to shut them down, which clearly makes Rami look like he's going after advertising companies, not illegal signs.
I think Strategic Media has a good case to go against the human rights commission. If this happens, Rami will have a bit of a problem as this will set a HUGE precedence.
See that's the problem when you don't work to compromise. I know for a fact of at least 3 ad agencies that have offered to sit down with Rami and hear him out and work through some of these problems, however, Rami has refused and will continue to refuse.
To put Mark's comment in perspective, though, he does run a website promising "The latest news and commentary on Ayn Rand and Objectivism."
And ttg: I'm not sure you know what it is that the Human Rights Commission does.
Thanks for plugging the website, Jonathan (twice!). Much appreciated.
maybe you should explain? Or are you only capable of repeat, rinse, repeat?
I'm still convinced you are a bot, in one way or another.