Good morning, everyone. I know it’s only Monday morning, and those of you reading from the east coast are probably just now beginning your morning routine, but we already have the mostly likely Idiot of the Week.
This week’s lucky chap is Ric Piffero from Ukiah, California. In an article featured in today’s “The Press Democrat, Ric and a property co-owner, own property in the hills of the Ukiah Valley. As the article says, their first fight with city officials was when they thought they would take it upon themselves to have “music blaring across the Ukiah Valley in the early morning hours on the Fourth of July.” Call me silly, but waking people up early on their paid day off of work is usually not the best tactic, regardless of what your message is.
Now Piffero and his property co-owner Dave Hull are in dispute with city officials, again, because of the enormous American flag they have erected atop a 45-foot flag pole:
Now, the battle is over a towering flagpole erected two years ago on steep slopes of the western hills above Ukiah, on the same property where the massive speakers were set up to broadcast the music.
City officials are demanding that the 45-foot-tall flagpole be removed or modified to conform to city height standards, the latest twist in the community’s debate over the preservation of views from the valley floor.
Property owners Ric Piffero and Dave Hull say no way.
“It’s an awesome tribute to our country,” Piffero said.
Piffero and Hull are right, the magnificent flag is “an awesome tribute.” The problem is it’s was built in violation of city codes, which were in place before the flag was a thought in their head. To make matters worse, the flagpole and lighting system were build without the necessary permits.
From the valley floor, a huge American flag attached to the pole can be seen flapping in the breezes during the day. At night a circle of lights at the pole’s base make the red, white and blue stand out.
While the flagpole is applauded in some quarters, chief city planner Charley Stump said the pole was erected illegally in 2004 because the necessary building and use permits were never acquired.
Piffero claims the fight over the flag display is “nothing but politics.” And he’s right, the politics of city management, height limits and the politics of obtaining permits. At least he’s prepared to be fined for his non-compliance. Chances are he’ll refuse to pay the fines as well and we’ll be reading more about Mr. Piffero and Mr. Hull.
Related posts:
- Curious…
- Things just be ‘asploading today!
- Summed up perfectly
- Case in point
- Prime Minister Allawi’s lies - part duex
Digg |
Stumble it! |
Del.icio.us
7 comments ↓
You are right, my brain is not up to functioning standards just yet.
If we make these true patriots conform to the fickle rule of city codes, the terrorists have already won.
So I take it that the collective aesthetic sense of the community trumps an individual’s right to make a political statement on his own property? Interesting.
@ jdf: When it violates already established city height limits and permit codes/laws, yes. I don’t think it’s the “aesthetic sense of the community” at work here, at least initially. It’s the allowable aesthetic dimensions that are the problem =)
FEAR AL-GEBRA!
Height limits exist for two reasons: public safety or public aesthetics. From the picture I saw in today’s paper, there isn’t a heck of a lot of risk of that flagpole falling on anybody but the guy who put it up. That leaves the aesthetics; everybody in the valley can see that big white pole and the flag on it. As flag-waving tends to be a form of political speech, it seems to me that there’s a problem here.
As flag-waving tends to be a form of political speech, it seems to me that there’s a problem here.
The Supreme Court doesn’t agree with you. This is a “time, place or manner” restriction, not one targetted at political speech.
Just testing…
Leave a Comment