Posted on 08/17/2013 9:49:51 AM PDT by kristinn
The chairman of a Port Vue-based political organization said he was given an ultimatum — remove an “Impeach Obama” sign or vacate the quarters he rents in a shopping center along Washington Boulevard in the borough.
Mon Valley Republican Committee chairman Brent Kovac said he did neither, so on Thursday his landlord Helen Siudyla-Totty painted over a sign that was painted on plywood posted after the political committee storefront was vandalized in October 2008.
“We did that mural on the panels where our windows were,” Kovac said.
Bricks and a tire were hurled through the storefront window a few weeks before the 2008 general election.
Kovac said Siudyla-Totty told him she had received “so many threatening phone calls” about the sign. Port Vue borough officials said they had no reports of any complaints about it.
The sign reportedly went up on Tuesday and was painted over later in the week. As of Friday morning red and blue rectangles had replaced the “Impeach Obama” caption.
“I just sat and watched it happen,” Kovac said. “I talked to a legal person who said, ‘You should call the ACLU.'”
The Mon Valley Republican Committee chairman said he wanted to tell friends to call his landlord in support of the sign, which went up as an endorsement of the “Overpasses for Obama's Impeachment” campaign.
“We were trying to get this together for a national event,” Kovac said.
SNIP
Completely different, I am surprised that you see any commonality. The bakery is about trying to engage a service that the vendor does not want to offer you. No contract was entered into, because the vendor turned refused the work.
The storefront is about a contract that is already in place. Unless the rental agreement stipulates that the renter can’t post political statements, or can’t criticize the president, or can’t make known views that disagree with the landlord, the renter can do whatever he wants.
No, you could not be more wrong with a capital R. The bakery is about refusing a client. No contract exists. The storefront has been rented. A contract exists. Unless the rental agreement specifically prohibits displaying political signs, the storefront is at the disposition of the renter to do as he pleases.
As if the ACLU would give a crap.
No, I think your initial confusion about refusing work versus a contract already in place is so childish that I question whether you are adult enough to be on any forum.
We'll never know how the lease is written, but I've never in my long life seen a store lease where the renter can willy-nilly and at his own whim alter the appearance of the store front with cosmetic changes such as re-painting a facade without the permission of the owner....never. Makes no difference if he painted a political slogan or the Mona Lisa, he apparently did this alteration on his own and the owner swiftly put the kabosh on his artwork.
Would you like it if you owned a store on Main Street and your tenant painted a political mural or message right on the front without your permission....and all of a sudden rocks and tires are breaking your store windows and the life and the safety of the folks inside is being threatened by the minute...and you're getting the threatening phone calls by the scores from the Obama cultist crazies?
Never mind your sermons, just answer that one question. I live in Realville along with Rush. From the safety of your easy chair it's easy to run someone else's rental propery which was put in frightening peril by an eager-beaver, dumbo tenant....no matter how much you appreciate his graffitti as do I.
Leni
“We’ll never know how the lease is written, but I’ve never in my long life seen a store lease where the renter can willy-nilly and at his own whim alter the appearance of the store front with cosmetic changes such as re-painting a facade without the permission of the owner....never. Makes no difference if he painted a political slogan or the Mona Lisa, he apparently did this alteration on his own and the owner swiftly put the kabosh on his artwork.”
You made an excellent point and you can bet money that if this were reversed and it was a democrat office many here would be cheering and talking about the the rights of landlords.
Same if it were any business that was seen to be a danger or nuisance to the landlord or the other tenants, or the property, say a custom lowrider shop with possible gang activity.
I think our own hypocrisy is one of the things that really damage the conservative image. JMHO of course.
I doubt that, since I’m older than dirt. And you attacked me first in a snarky manner, saying the lease didn’t say this and that when you later admitted that you had not read the lease either.
Again, it depends on the terms of the lease, which neither you, nor I, know, but which I freely admitted with the phrase “it depends on the terms”. Many leases require the tenant to do all repairs and paint on their own dime.
The point you are missing is that this is POLITICAL speech, and that is protected by the 1st Amendment. If the building owner did not want such a sign, she should have had a clause prohibiting it. That’s what lawyers are for.
Thought control commissars.
No, the point being missed is that the First Amendment only applies to congress.
They would be throwing rocks whether the message was painted without permission or if the renter had put up a nylon banner to express his ideas, so your question is meaningless.
Helen Siudyla-Totty
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A hyphenated name!
Definitely a lib/Dem/Marxist/femi-nazi/Prog!
I think you need to re-read the article. The article states; “ “We did that mural on the panels where our windows were,” Kovac said.
Bricks and a tire were hurled through the storefront window a few weeks before the 2008 general election. “
So for almost five years this storefront had plywood where a window used to be, (before it was vandalized). I didn’t see anywhere in the article about the landlord complaining about the plywood for the last five years.
From my experience, a normal commercial lease allows for signage in your store windows. Political signage would, I believe, include viewpoint and advocacy. The sign does not appear to violate any laws or statutes, but most likely offends the landlord who disagrees with the message.
The tenant should file a police report and request the landlord be charged with vandalism, (at the least), and at the same time sue in civil court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.