Cheney learned from his involvement in watergate that if you don’t want to get caught with bad memos, don’t write memos.

The city didn’t create any overt paperwork about the call to the billboard company.

Without a peice of dated paper, the whole story is just he said she said.

However discovery of phone records in litigation could show that the city called the billboard company.

I got $20 bucks for the legal fund on this one, who else?

Simply make them realise that they should never, ever, even consider doing anything like that. If they actually didn’t do it this time (which I would bet is unlikely) it serves as a reminder to never think of doing it at some later time; if they did but are lying about it, it makes them think they should not do it again. It’s called working the refs.

“I received your e-mail and I want to emphasize the City did not ask the billboard company to remove the sign. I did speak to Wendy Leung of The Daily Bulletin late in the day on Thursday, November 20th and shared with her that the City had received approximately 90 calls and that the callers were asking the sign to be removed. When I saw her follow up article on Friday, November 21st, that included statements from my conversation with her, I was alarmed to read the first quote that would give people the impression that I asked the company to remove the sign and not the callers to City Hall. At no time did the City, or myself, ask the company to remove the sign. When we contacted the billboard company on Thursday, it was for the purpose of letting them know that we had received phone calls about the sign.

The City does not control content of advertising nor does it have any discretionary approval of billboard advertising. The City does not approve when or what a billboard company puts up nor does it approve when or what it takes down. The City does not have a role in or control billboard content. This ad that you refer to could go up or down or changed anyway the billboard company wishes to at any time like any other billboard without any approval or permit by the City. These are private sector decisions.

We advise those who complain to the City about any billboard in the same way. For those who want to know why the billboard company put up a sign, they should ask the billboard company. For those who want to know why the billboard company removes a sign, we advise they do the same: they should ask the billboard company. The City is not responsible for any business decisions made by any billboard company.

Sincerely,
Linda Daniels
Redevelopment Director”

Here is a link to my blog entry about the issue:

http://kellyswanholm.blogspot.com/2008/11/response-from-rc.html

If we are prepared to reconsider the situation when more evidence comes in, then we are more rational than the creationists. Very considerably more.

That’s true. I was exaggerating.

And you thought we were more rational than the creationists.

If we are prepared to reconsider the situation when more evidence comes in, then we are more rational than the creationists. Very considerably more.

If the reporter’s latest story is accurate, then it’s looking as if both city and company were at fault: the city for asking for the sign to be taken down and the company for complying all too readily. And both are now asking themselves what damage control they can apply.

Whatever happened, the company obviously owes FFRF a prompt explanation.

http://www.insidesocal.com/rcnow/2008/11/city-role-fuzzy-in-billboard-c.html

…I reported here and in the newspaper that the city called sign company General Outdoor last week and asked if there was a way to get the controversial sign removed. But since the article appeared Friday, Linda Daniels has denied making that comment. I am denying I misquoted her. So I guess this is a she said/she said thing.

It must be confusing for the reader to know what to believe. Only the city and the sign company know what conversation really took place between them. But I’ve had no luck getting the sign company to speak to me. Last week, the company hung up on me…

In fact, the City does not have any authority over the content of a billboard and the City does not approve what is put up on a billboard and is not authorized to remove billboard advertisements.

Legally, this is true. However, governments have a way of using coercion to get around legal limits. For example, the Federal government has no authority setting the drinking age and so instead passed a law cutting off a large chunk of highway funds to any state that refuses to set it at 21 or above. At the city level, I’m sure that they could, say, threaten to (ab)use eminent domain laws to steal the billboard from the company. Or they could pass some sort of regulation designed to make the company in question lose out to its competitors (e.g., billboards at the following locations are taxed an extra such and such a rate…). Or declare certain areas “historic” and add restrictions to building codes that prevent billboards. etc.

While I don’t think there’s enough information here to make even a provisional conclusion, don’t be tricked into thinking that legal limits would stop them if they really wanted to; government is built on coercion and they’ve gotten really good at it.

In regards to the FFRF billboard ad “Imagine no Religion”:

Did Linda Daniels, re-development director, contact you about complaints about the Freedom From Religion Foundation billboard or not? If yes, you should have defended the Constitution out of your own self-interest as a citizen and left the advertisement up. If not, you still shouldn’t have taken it down. You’re going to get a lot more complaints from us non-religious fold than you did from people who are offended at the idea of using their imagination.