Thank you for posting what happened ... I would like to see the Liberal OC blog step forward and also denounce the violation of Allan's constitutional rights. Democrat, Republican or (in my case) non-partisan, this county's democracy functions only so long as all political opinions can be expressed.

For the record, below is Irvine's Free Speech Ordinance. It was originally proposed and sponsored in 1990 by Larry Agran, before he turned to the Dark Side. As a one-time Agranista, I know that many other ex-Agranistas are ashamed and saddened that he continues to slide deeper and deeper into hypocrisy.

Sec. 4-14-601. Prohibitions.
No person shall interfere with the exercise of free speech rights by persons within areas open to the general public in shopping centers, apartment complexes and other private or public property open to the general public. As used in this section, "free speech rights" shall mean the right to freedom of speech, the right to solicit and collect signatures on petitions and the right to distribute literature or display temporary signs or placards of a political nature; provided such activities do not result in the obstruction of entrances, exits or passageways or create a threat to public safety.
(Code 1976, § IV.L-601; Ord. No. 90-3, § 1, 2-13-90)

Sec. 4-14-602. Penalty for violation.
A. Any person violating this chapter is guilty of an infraction and may be punished by the issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to Chapter 3 of Division 13 of Title 4 (section 4-13-302, et seq.) of the Municipal Code.
B. For purposes of enforcing this chapter, a police officer or other authorized employee of the City's Public Safety Department shall have the administrative citation powers granted to a Code Enforcement Official under section 4-13-303 of the Irvine Municipal Code. (Ord. No. 05-08, 4-26-05)

Allan,

Agran conspiracy my left foot. You sound more like a Pedroza-bot whining about "the machine" than someone "knows" Irvine.

Irvine is a very anti-sign kinda town.

You've lived in Irvine long enough to know that those "tattler" signs you put in SpringAcre Park (where Main dead-ends into West Yale Loop) were a direct violation of the Woodbridge CCRs. Notice how the realtors all have identical open house signs that always come back down at 5 pm sharp? They know the rules, and you have lived here far too long claim ignorance of these rules.

There is a procedure for posting these signs in Irvine (not just Woodbridge). I believe the key detail is someone has to be on file so that the city knows who to fine if the signs are not removed in a timely manner. (Please correct -- my memory is hazy on the details)

Heck, not even Edwards Cinema can put up signs in Irvine -- they had to take down their Marqee on Alton near Paseo Westpark. Sprint had to take theirs down WITHIN HOURS when they put a banner over their new store in the Cross Roads Center. I watched KZLA mobile broadcasting get chased out of the Ralph's parking lot within 45 minutes of setting up-- they were completely confused that the country-loving locals called the cops instead of wanting a DJ autograph. It was priceless to watch.

Again, Irvine is a tough town for the kind of stunt your pulled..

Period.

Two points for next time:

1. File the silly paper work with city.
2. Make your signs more obviously political. I knew they were political, but to your average Irvine soccer mom they looked more like an Multi-level marketing pitch.

-tylerh

p.s. Thanks for helping my neighborhood look more like Hawaiian Gardens. My neighbors *really* appreciate that.

Tyler-

Just because you consider your city to be an "anti-sign" kind of town doesn't justify the actions of the city staff under Larry's orders.

The law is written for a reason. Allan followed every sign ordinance(look them up). The signs came down within an hour of being put up while other signs are still standing all over the city. Allan isn't naive enough to believe that this wasn't done intentionally.

Oh and please...comparing Allan to Pedroza? What a stretch.

By the way:

"Again, Irvine is a tough town for the kind of stunt your pulled.."

Practicing free speech is now considered a stunt? Please explain.

Silliness, anyone who lives in Irvine knows you can't just post signs up like that. Ever try having a garage sale or posting for a lost cat?

This is the obvious political stunt: put up signs knowing they will be taken down (not for content but because they violate CC&Rs and the Irvine Sign Code), when signs are taken down whine and play victim, Blame Larry Agran.

If you're really being discriminated against because of the waste of server space that is the Irvine Tattler, where are the other signs?

D'anconia said:

the city staff under Larry's orders.

Got evidence of that? I'm willing to believe it's true, but I'd like a little proof. As I enumerated above, it's completely plausible that the sign removal was driven by citizen complaints: those were cheap signs in a neighborhood that cares about such things.

Allan followed every sign ordinance(look them up).
Uh, no thank you, I have better uses for my time than reading the Irvine city ordinance book. I'm not the one who wants
to put advertising signs all over an anti-sign town. Moreover, my recollection is that Allan and his pals did NOT follow every ordinance in the book. It's a rather big book.

Importantly, the signs did not look like *political* free speech (clearly supporting a candidate or proposition) but rather like *commercial* free speech, (advertising a website). Commercial speech is *tightly* regulated in Irvine. As I said before, making the signs more overtly political would probably help in the future.

Practicing free speech is now considered a stunt?

Often, yes. Even heard of a place called Berkeley? They do free speech stunts all the time up there. Did a great job when the Chinese wanted to run the Olympic torch through San Francisco, for example.

Have any of you actually tried to *talk* to the city staff to see how to do this? In my experience, the staff are quite helpful on such matters, however much you may distrust the current city council majority.

-tylerh

"Uh, no thank you, I have better uses for my time than reading the Irvine city ordinance book. I'm not the one who wants
to put advertising signs all over an anti-sign town. Moreover, my recollection is that Allan and his pals did NOT follow every ordinance in the book. It's a rather big book."

Yes, I agree that it's a rather big book, but Allan read it, and followed every ordinance in it. I urge you to take 10 minutes of your time and do it yourself before you accuse Allan of not following the rules.

"Have any of you actually tried to *talk* to the city staff to see how to do this? In my experience, the staff are quite helpful on such matters, however much you may distrust the current city council majority."

I actually called the city ordinance staff and had a 20 minute conversation with the lady (who is very nice I must add) BEFORE Allan put the signs out. She said she didn't see a problem with what Allan wanted to do and said the signs wouldn't be taken down unless Allan violated the ordinance rules, which he clearly didn't.

I'm not sure why you think it's okay that your city *tightly* regulates political free speech with laws that are not in the book. Smells of VERY funny business.

Todd-

"This is the obvious political stunt: put up signs knowing they will be taken down (not for content but because they violate CC&Rs and the Irvine Sign Code), when signs are taken down whine and play victim, Blame Larry Agran."

I would like to know, specifically, which sign ordinance Allan did not follow. If you don't know or if you don't have that information, your statement is meaningless.

"If you're really being discriminated against because of the waste of server space that is the Irvine Tattler, where are the other signs?"

Are you a little slow? THEY WERE ALL TAKEN DOWN

At least you allowed for your despise against Irvine Tattler to be known...

People are missing the point. Irvine (Boss Agran) passes some sort of "free speech" ordinanace and then relies on CC&Rs to remove offending signs. That stinks of...weell, fill in the blank.

Mussolini was praised because he made the trains run on time...

RP-

It goes further than that. All CC&Rs were followed. This was a needless and telling act of desperation by the Agran Cabal.

I'm staying out of the name-calling because that's not my thing.

For the record, though, the issue isn't CC&Rs. Irvine doesn't enforce CC&Rs. The association does.

I posted the ordinance upstream in this thread. It states that the signs are legal if they're on public property open to the general public, and they are temporary signs or placards "of a political nature."

How is that defined? The ordinance doesn't really say. Those of us who are free speech types would argue it should be interpreted liberally, but as others have noted this is Irvine where people freak out over a non-earth tone logo on the Woodbridge H.S. gym.

There is no doubt that the good folks at City Hall know the site is political in nature. I look at the daily statistics generated by my hosting service. Among the top I.P. addresses visiting the site are the City of Irvine and Rutan & Tucker, the City's contract legal counsel. And that's before the sign incident.

When the site began, people urged me to place ads, post signs, sell T-shirts and bumper stickers, etc. That's not my thing. I don't have the time, money or resources. My thing is researching the articles to ensure they're factual, and posting the documents on the site to prove they're factual. I've challenged my critics many times to show me what's not factual. They never respond.

If others want to step forward and promote the site, that's fine by me. I'm putting my time into restoring clean and honest government at Irvine City Hall.

Stephen
IrvineTattler.com

"Among the top I.P. addresses visiting the site are the City of Irvine and Rutan & Tucker, the City's contract legal counsel"

That's pretty creepy. I wonder if there's an enemies list.

I called the city about this on Friday; the signs werethe wrong size, not affiliated with a political campaign or race and were placed in public thoroughfares; that's why they were yanked. Not a council decision; city staff following through on city law in regards to signs on content.

If the signs were promoting an actual candidate, then all they would have to do is meet the size requirement.

Do your homework next time guys.

Dan you might want to check the rule, where it says that signs must be no bigger than 3 feet wide(or long) if it is to be placed within 200 feet of an intersection. None of the signs were placed at intersections OR within 200 feet from them. They were ALL placed in allowable space, according to the rules. The problem is they city staff (under orders) changes the rules on an ad hoc basis, which makes it very convenient for the city of Irvine to claim to have a Free Speech Ordinance while cherry picking what stays up and what doesn't.

Dan Chmielewski wrote:

"I called the city about this on Friday; the signs werethe wrong size, not affiliated with a political campaign or race and were placed in public thoroughfares; that's why they were yanked. Not a council decision; city staff following through on city law in regards to signs on content.

If the signs were promoting an actual candidate, then all they would have to do is meet the size requirement."

I haven't seen the signs, but Allan Bartlett told me they're the exact same size as the ubiquitous Bill Campbell for Supervisor signs that have been on public rights-of-way for some time.

It is legal to place the signs on "public thoroughfares," as you put it. The ordinance as stated above says "public property open to the general public." The inspector who originally contacted me confirmed they were on public property -- "public rights of way," as she put it.

So that leaves the question of whether the signs were "of a political nature." The ordinance is silent on what that means. If someone put up a sign that said GREENPEACE, should it be confiscated? What about MOVEON.ORG?

I've heard from too many sources to have any doubt the folks at City Hall know IrvineTattler.com is a political site. In fact, for those who live in Irvine, if you look at the ballot statements currently arriving in the mail for Measure H, you'll see that I wrote the No on H statement and IrvineTattler.com is mentioned in the statement as a place voters can go for more information. All five council members saw that statement, as did the city manager, city attorney and the city clerk.

Seems to me that people who believe in free speech would take a more liberal and tolerant approach than looking for a technical excuse to confiscate signs critical of the council majority.

Dan Chmielewski wrote:

"I called the city about this on Friday; the signs werethe wrong size, not affiliated with a political campaign or race and were placed in public thoroughfares; that's why they were yanked. Not a council decision; city staff following through on city law in regards to signs on content."

Something just occurred to me ... City Hall was closed on Friday. They close every other Friday. It says so on the city's web site, and I had to get in there late Thursday afternoon to pick up a budget document because they were going to be closed on Friday.

So just who did you manage to call when the switchboard was closed and no one was in the office?

Methinks you owe an explanation, otherwise some people will think you're a liar.

Stephen

Stephen -- I have done considerable volunteer work over the years with cub scouts, youth soccer, youth baseball, youth basketball, and as an HOA president representing neighbors in a dispute over a sidewalk at a parl; I have collected more than my fair share of home and cell phone numbers. Just because the office is closed didn't prevent me from getting an answer.

Smith & D'anconia,

Based on your responses, I assume you're not very experienced with the law. One important thing to do is make sure that you are looking up the regulations actually on point, not those relating to something else. The code sections you've sited are basically the 1st amendment of Irvine, not the ones dealing with regulations of signage.

Actual posting of signs is regulated by Zoning Ordinance Chapter 7-3, sign type #107.

Additionally, requirements can be found in a pdf on the city's website, here: http://cityofirvine.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=8848

Both clearly state the requirement is not if the sign "political in nature" but that it is "related to an upcoming political campaign." So a sign advertising for Greenpeace would have to come down, but a sign in support of a clean air ballot proposition would qualify.

Of course, any expenditures related to a political campaign in California has to be reported to the FPPC. Have the cost of the signs and maintaining the website been reported as a political expenditure or campaign donation? I checked Cal-Access and they haven't.

Seems to me you guys either messed up and put of signs you shouldn't have or messed up and failed to report political expenditures and campaign donations? Which one is? Please let me know, I'm happy to get the ball rolling with the FPPC.

Also D'Anconia - the "other signs" I was referring to were non-Irvine Tattler signs which had been left up. This would show that taking down the signs was politically motivated. Of course such signs don't exist. I actually had a longer explanation of this at first, but upon rereading figured any idiot could figure out what I meant simply by the word "other" (meaning not the same as the ones already mentioned or implied). Guess I was wrong.

Sorry Stephen; I'm not outing my sources least they get a nasty voice mail from Christina Shea.

In other words, Todd, "free speech" has a remarkably narrow meaning in Irvine, right?

Redperegrine,

Umm, no. It means the posting of signs in public thoroughfares is regulated in a legitimate non-content sensitive manner. Signs must conform to size requirements and also involve an upcoming election. These types of limitations exist in almost all cities. The signs would have been taken down in almost any city in OC which enforces its regulations.

Sorry, Todd, but to an outsider it sure looks like your sign ordinance is a convenient mechanism for curtailing genuine political speech unfavorable to the regime.

Dan Chmielewski's dissembling borders on the laughable.

He says I'm ignorant of the law. Well, I worked for the Irvine Police Department for seven years. Then I worked in the city's City Manager Office for three years as a budget and legislative analyst. Among other things, I wrote resolutions that were adopted by the City Council. And I analyzed legislation to recommend positions that should be taken by the City Council.

Dan also refuses to tell us how he magically got in touch with someone while City Hall was closed. He claims to have phone numbers for staff but won't reveal them because he fears a council member in the MINORITY will somehow take revenge. That's hysterical. There's a saying at City Hall -- "Staff counts to three." Meaning that the three-member majority runs the show.

Just my opinion, but I suspect Dan got his marching orders from Larry Agran and just parroted what he was told.

But that's nothing new. After Agran said Shea and Choi were suing themselves -- another lie -- Dan parroted that too on his blog. Of course, the truth was that Shea and Choi sued the Great Park Corporation for illegally blocking them from seeing corporation documents. Dan never reported on his blog that Agran & Co. caved in after the court ruled Agran absolutely no legal standing whatsoever. Shea and Choi won. Agran lost. Funny how Dan didn't mention that either.

Dan's repeated false accusations show that he has no facts to back up his position. The Irvine Tattler (www.irvinetattler.com) posts documents and videos to back up everything I post. Dan hasn't the guts or the integrity to tell us who he magically called when City Hall was closed. Absent any evidence to the contrary, I will just conclude this is another lie to go with all the other lies he spins.

I'm looking forward to Barack Obama winning the Democratic nomination, because he'll bring a higher ethical standard to the party and will hopefully punt to the curb the self-described "progressives" are really only out to attach themselves to naked power.

And as a general question to the readers ... Any speculation why people like Dan and Todd affix their lips to Agran's derriere after so many progressive Agranistas have openly renounced him over the years?

I was the first, but following me out the door were Will Swaim, Chris Mears, Mark Petracca, Mark Goldstone and more. That's pretty much all of Agran's original inner circle of confidants, save for Ed Dornan who died in December 2005.

Why would so many people who fought in the trenches with Agran for decades suddenly and publicly renounce him? Agran's explanations have ranged from sour grapes to alleging mental instability to simply calling someone a "loser."

I was one of the few who stuck with Agran all the way through the slimy 1990 municipal election, through his presidential campaign in 1991-92 (no, he didn't win), through CityVote in 1995, through the El Toro Airport battles in the late 1990s. It was only after he chose to embrace the sleazy tactics of our one-time opposition that I abandoned him. And that's what eventually led the others to renounce him too.

It's funny, because after I got to know Christina Shea in the wake of Irvine's borrow-and-bet scandal in the mid-1990s did I come to find out she wasn't the devil Agran claimed she was. I found that she was an impeccably honest and ethical person; although we may have disagreed on some political issues at the national level, locally she was pretty much on the same side as us 99% of the time. Of the five council members at the time, she was the only one who wanted the truth to come out about the borrow-and-bet scheme.

I saw an opportunity to end litmus-test politics in Irvine forever, if only Agran and Shea could meet somewhere in the middle. In the end, it was Agran who couldn't let go of past animosities, choosing to leak to the press an embarrassing story about Shea's daughter. It's a basic rule of civilized politics that you leave the children out of the battle, but Agran chose the low road rather get that chip off his shoulder.

He's only gone downhill from there. It's ironic, because in the end all those aforementioned Agranistas have gravitated to Shea even though they retain their progressive liberal stripes. It says a lot for Shea's integrity that the progressives would rather side with her than him.

Stephen
IrvineTattler.com

What I find entertaining is contemplating the eventuality of Agran losing his majority of one; and reflecting on how fast Todd and Dan will be off to see their pals at the ACLU - crying about how you can't possibly restrict an indivisible concept like free speech into the narrow confines of Irvine's Stepford sign ordinance; and how petty fiefdoms like Irvine can't be allowed to concoct their own definitions of free speech. Good luck!

In today's Irvine World News ...

*****

SIGN SHOWDOWN A few local bloggers are decrying the city’s removal last week of 68 signs along Culver Boulevard, saying the decision was politically motivated. Allan Bartlett on Thursday took credit for the signs in his “Powder Blue Report” blog, saying he and other Irvine activists raised money to create and post signs directing readers to www. irvine tattler .com. Both Bartlett and Irvine Tattler publisher Stephen Smith have been critical of the council majority – Mayor Beth Krom and council members Larry Agran and Sukhee Kang.

The signs were removed after several residents complained about them and the city manager and city attorney determined that they were technically commercial signs, rather than the type of political signs allowed by city rules, Code Enforcement Supervisor Jan Helf said. To be allowed on public property, political signs must be directly targeted at candidates or issues that Irvine residents will be voting on, she said.

The city removed nearly 11,000 signs from the community last year, including signs for Web sites such as www.singles.com, Helf said.

Meanwhile, the 68 signs are still waiting for their owner to claim them, Helf said, even if they were left a little soggy from the morning dew.

– Sean Emery

*****

Golly, exactly as I said what happened, and not the version of events spun by Dan and Todd. It had nothing to do with the size of the signs. So much for Dan's exclusive magical anonymous insider course.

I will comment that Ms. Helf's interpretation of the Free Speech ordinance does not seem to reconcile with the language of the ordinance. The ordinance says only signs "of a political nature," not signs that advocate a candidate or issue that residents will be voting on.

But that's up to Mr. Bartlett. If I were him, I'd get a civil rights attorney and sue.

Stephen
IrvineTattler.com

Stephen:

Are you illiterate and stupid? From above:

"Actual posting of signs is regulated by Zoning Ordinance Chapter 7-3, sign type #107.

Additionally, requirements can be found in a pdf on the city's website, here: http://cityofirvine.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=8848

Both clearly state the requirement is not if the sign "political in nature" but that it is "related to an upcoming political campaign." So a sign advertising for Greenpeace would have to come down, but a sign in support of a clean air ballot proposition would qualify."

Stephen --
I stand by my statement on contacting the city. It was a small part of a larger call, but I trust my source even if you don't. I also have almost no contact with Larry Agran. The last time I even say him was about a year and a half ago. Christina once opined on our blog that Larry and I were close personal frieds -- in your terms Stephen -- that would be a lie like the one should told on KOCE that the first choice for Great Park CEO was his Best Friend -- also a lie. And it's MITCH Goldstone, not Mark. But keep spining those conspiracy theories.

I have nothing to prove to you. And your little website is a laughable rehash of the old fight against Agran, Krom and Kang. Voters were turned off my the Irvine Chronicle and they'll be turned off by the Tattler. What are they going to believe, what you write or what they see happening in Irvine with their own eyes.

Since you brought up the embarrassing story about Shea's daughter, you left out all the voice mail threats from Shea about bringing the power of her office down on the police. I believe there was a second arrest for posession of drug paraphernalia. Was that Agran's leak to the press too? I have worked cop shop as a reporter and reviewed arrest logs; so if there was a police report abou the arrest, its a public document and would certianly come out anyway.

But why drag Shea's daughter through this all over again? You brought it up.

Stephen -- Your site, like TheLiberalOC.com, offers no means for readers to correct obvious mistakes. ON your front page, you challenge the notion that Shea was ever a lobbyist. It was all over her web site and she tok it down when the ethics ordinance pased (the one she voted for twice). It would take little time to pick apart many of your stories. Too bad you don't allow readers to do so and that's why I seldom spend time on your site.

silly me with typos; I meant, UNLIKE the LiberalOC.com.