Read this page on the Code Enforcement League of America's web site. It's interestingt the lengths they'll go to "get their Herbie"

http://www.cela1.com/illegal-signs.htm

My City goes straight to #6 in the article from the Gilbert Code Enforcement Officer's article and it works great for us. Our City has a strict sign code and the City Council demands that signs be removed immediately.

>Read this page on the Code
>Enforcement League of America's web
>site. It's interestingt the lengths
>they'll go to "get their
>Herbie"
>
>http://www.cela1.com/illegal-signs.htm

That's a great page! Have you been in touch with them to tell them about CAUSS? I found a similar (though non-official) page for Needham, Mass recently and invited them to visit the CAUSS site.

We should all make it a point to do this, and post the info here so others don't duplicate our efforts.

Thanks for posting this link. Good work.

Redstone

I e-mailed code officer in Arizona and suggested that he contact CAUSS website. He returned my e-mail and stated that combining resources with other cities and using CAUSS like people is something they do and will do.

LAST EDITED ON 01-01-02 AT 09:19 PM (CST)

My only beef with #6 is that for persistent spammers it treats the
symptoms without curing the disease. In Austin one notorious spammer
puts up more than 500 / year (yes five hundred) without regard to
how many times the signs are removed.

Unfortunately all the Austin CE is doing is playing phone tag with
spammers and removing signs occasionally. If stronger measures
were taken against the top 5 spammers (e.g. fines and prosecution),
75% of Austin's problem would go away.

If we had the problem that Austin has about signs, #6 would not be used and we would use other methods. If code enforcement in Austin was more proactive, then some of these problems would disappear. Never give up!!!

I've received several messages from the Austin area indicating that Austin has a city ordinance which "prohibits" citizens from removing street spam.

I don't know where this came from but I can't find it any where in the Austin code. In keeping with the State of Texas statutes this would be a contradiction of state law.

I have a tendency to believe that someone in Austin Code Enforcement is putting out some misinformation for whatever reason.

GreatWhite-BH (GW)
No.Texas Chapter - CAUSS

GW

Take a look at Austin's City Code, 25-10-2 (A):

25-10-2  COMPLIANCE REQUIRED.

(A) A person may not install, move, structurally alter, structurally repair, maintain, or use a sign except in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable Code provisions.

(B) The primary beneficiary of a sign installed, moved, structurally altered, structurally repaired, maintained, or used in violation of this Code is presumed to have authorized the installation, movement, structural alteration, structural repair, maintenance, or use of the sign in violation of this Code.

(C) A person who violates Subsection (A) or (B) commits an offense.

The question is whether or not move encompasses remove. Even if it does, there should be nothing preventing Austin's CE from "deputizing" a few concerned private citizens as unpaid employees of the City Manager.

Finally, has CAUSS received a rock solid, bomb proof legal analysis of considering signs as "abandoned property" and removable by anyone? Clearly this is the case in Rhode Island. Clearly it is *not* the case in Virginia where a shark lost a court battle over this. What about Texas?

What was results, summarized, of shark losing court battle in Virginia? Thanks.

This was from northern Virginia shark John Bell's "Littering Notes" e-mail newsletter of December 2001:

Robert Lauderdale's trial for "stealing signs" wound up with him taking a plea to protect him from getting a criminal mark on his record.  Another $2,500.00 fine plus court costs and lawyer fees.  This with the previous Fairfax County $2,500.00 fine plus court costs and lawyers fees puts Robert  way over $5,000.00 in the hole.

The judge set some boundaries after the State prosecutor made his opening which all but doomed the case. In my opinion, Robert really needed an attorney who is an aggressive standup litigator type.

LAST EDITED ON 01-03-02 AT 06:41 AM (CST)

Is there a "Robert Lauderdale" legal relief fund that may help him defray some of the costs of ridding his area of illegal signs? Thanks.

>Take a look at Austin's City
>Code, 25-10-2 (A):
>
>25-10-2  COMPLIANCE REQUIRED.
>
>(A) A person may not install,
>move, structurally alter, structurally repair,
>maintain, or use a sign
>except in accordance with the
>provisions of this chapter and
>other applicable Code provisions.
>
I think an equivalent way of stating the "move" provision is to say that a person may not move a sign so as to put it in violation of the provisions. There is no way that removing a sign could put it in violation. Of course, I am not a lawyer.


>
>The question is whether or not
>move encompasses remove. Even
>if it does, there should
>be nothing preventing Austin's CE
>from "deputizing" a few concerned
>private citizens as unpaid employees
>of the City Manager.

Newbie (not)

I spent two hours last night browsing through the Austin Codes. There's a lot of superflous wording further on down past this paragraph that doesn't even come close to clarifying "whom has the responsibility for removal" About the only thing the code states that comes close refers to the "City Manager"

The search engine for the web site leaves a lot to be desired. When you do a search on "sign ordinance", "illegally posted signs", "signs in right of ways", you get every thing but.

The code probably clarifys the fines etc, someplace but I never found it. The only thing I found for sure was the prohibition of sign placement in certain streets and roadways, primarily scenic areas, from what I can gather.

Providing that Austin city attorneys interpret the law as the word is defined in Webster's latest edition, "Move" means from one location to another. "Remove" has a totally different meaning. But as Newbie has stated, I'M not an attorney.

I'm still looking for a statement in the code that indicates a private citizen cannot remove street litter and so far I've not found it. However, that's not saying it isn't there. It's also my understanding that a person cannot be charged with code violation unless that code is specifically stated, regardless of what some other individual's interpretation is.

As far as Virgina laws are concerned, their basis for law is different than the rest of the country. It my understanding having lived in Virgina for ten years, that their law is based on "Rule of the Commonwealth" which is somewhat Puritanical compared with the other parts of the country, especially Texas.


GreatWhite-BH (GW)
No.Texas Chapter - CAUSS

GW