City Orders Man To Remove Flag

Gentleposters, might I remind you that while Chad engages you, he/she/it is avoiding discussion of the more recent article which I posted which effectively counters his every complaint.

Local ordinances for pole height limits the height to 20-ft, but the State Codes effectively prohibit suhc ordinances which are based solely on aesthetics - in short, if there is no qualified safety issue, then the State Codes specifically allow such structures.

Moreover, if anyone ever bother to look at the pictures of the flag and the surrounding area, they'd understand that the flag pole is nowhere near anyone's property other than properties owned by either Piffero or Hull.

Here's another picture of the flag in question, and it should be fairly obvious that the flag and pole would need to be moved a great distacne before it would be a safety hazzard for anyone other than the properrty owners.

Care to respond Chad? Or are you going to pull a Bully and run away?
http://www.news10.net/storyfull2.aspx?storyid=18925

From the original article, it did not show the relative location of the flag. As long as he lowers the pole to the legal height, then there's nothing wrong with flying that flag.
 
From the original article, it did not show the relative location of the flag. As long as he lowers the pole to the legal height, then there's nothing wrong with flying that flag.
Actually, the permit the two are requesting cannot be denied to them for anything other than safety reasons, according to two different sections of the California Codes. Yes, the two could simply fly the flag on a 20-ft pole to avoid ALL controversy, but to do so would be to aquiesce to what may well be an unlawful ordinance.

So I ask you Chad, when you use the term "legal height" are you referring to the State Codes which would seem to allow for the existing flag & pole, or are your referring to the local ordinance which would prohibit such a display? Are you remembering that local ordinances cannot over-ride state law, which in turn has to abide existing Federal Codes?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmp
Actually, the permit the two are requesting cannot be denied to them for anything other than safety reasons, according to two different sections of the California Codes. Yes, the two could simply fly the flag on a 20-ft pole to avoid ALL controversy, but to do so would be to aquiesce to what may well be an unlawful ordinance.

So I ask you Chad, when you use the term "legal height" are you referring to the State Codes which would seem to allow for the existing flag & pole, or are your referring to the local ordinance which would prohibit such a display? Are you remembering that local ordinances cannot over-ride state law, which in turn has to abide existing Federal Codes?

Don't make a liberal make a decision based on fact and law and common sense and reason. ;)
 
Actually, the permit the two are requesting cannot be denied to them for anything other than safety reasons, according to two different sections of the California Codes. Yes, the two could simply fly the flag on a 20-ft pole to avoid ALL controversy, but to do so would be to aquiesce to what may well be an unlawful ordinance.

So I ask you Chad, when you use the term "legal height" are you referring to the State Codes which would seem to allow for the existing flag & pole, or are your referring to the local ordinance which would prohibit such a display? Are you remembering that local ordinances cannot over-ride state law, which in turn has to abide existing Federal Codes?

City ordinances prohibit a structure that tall from being erected. It doesn't seem that complicated. Maybe you can elaborate on the exact state laws and federal codes regarding this issue.

If they want to fly that flag, just lower the flag pole. The flag isn't the issue, it's the pole that causing the problem. This kind of thing happens in just about every city in America. If there wasn't a flag flying off of it, this wouldn't even be news.
 
City ordinances prohibit a structure that tall from being erected. It doesn't seem that complicated. Maybe you can elaborate on the exact state laws and federal codes regarding this issue.

If they want to fly that flag, just lower the flag pole. The flag isn't the issue, it's the pole that causing the problem. This kind of thing happens in just about every city in America. If there wasn't a flag flying off of it, this wouldn't even be news.
Refer to the citations in my eariler posts in this thread. You will find specific reference to Califronia Government Codes and California Civil Codes cited inside a QUOTE-block.
 
Also Chad, while the City IS arguing about the pole height, it does so in reference to what is ON the pole, in this case a large Stars and Stripes. If the only thing at issue was the pole height and structural integrity, I'd probably side with the City. However, the City made the argument that the flag interferes with the aesthetics of the panoramic view as part of the reason to deny the permit for Contruction and Use. Many roads lead to the same destination, and in this case the City of Ukiah seems to have taken a road which may not get them where they wanted to go.

It should also be noted that Piffero and Hull have petitions signed by several hundred locals supporting their cause, so it's not like this is a couple of uber-patriots in a land of nutballs and kooks. Y'know what I mean?
 
Also Chad, while the City IS arguing about the pole height, it does so in reference to what is ON the pole, in this case a large Stars and Stripes. If the only thing at issue was the pole height and structural integrity, I'd probably side with the City. However, the City made the argument that the flag interferes with the aesthetics of the panoramic view as part of the reason to deny the permit for Contruction and Use. Many roads lead to the same destination, and in this case the City of Ukiah seems to have taken a road which may not get them where they wanted to go.

It should also be noted that Piffero and Hull have petitions signed by several hundred locals supporting their cause, so it's not like this is a couple of uber-patriots in a land of nutballs and kooks. Y'know what I mean?


Sorry guys, I somehow missed the "visual blight" comment in the original article. I was wrong. The 3 voters on council want it gone for the flag itself and not just the pole.

Ya'll were right, I was wrong.
 
Sorry guys, I somehow missed the "visual blight" comment in the original article. I was wrong. The 3 voters on council want it gone for the flag itself and not just the pole.

Ya'll were right, I was wrong.

I'll give ya props for being able to say that. A lot of people wouldn't have admitted that. Kudos!

Now if you had any taste in NFL teams.... :)
 
Ya'll were right, I was wrong.

460_0___30_0_0_0_0_0_hell_freezes_over.jpg
 
Sorry guys, I somehow missed the "visual blight" comment in the original article. I was wrong. The 3 voters on council want it gone for the flag itself and not just the pole.

Ya'll were right, I was wrong.
Hory shit this NEVER happens...

somebody hold me
 
If it were a Mexican flag, he could claim "racism" and then he'd get his way. But the Stars 'n Stripes, well, that's a RACIST flag, so not only is it too big, it's discrimination. I don't see what there is to discuss here, people.

:bsflag:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top