You're watching...
Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Steve Simpson on his efforts to help save a business from eminent domain.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Embarrassing myself physically.
Traveling the country.
With this.
The title of my new book.
I in this fantasy that people make copies of this.
Hold no they can't signs up when their state politicians promise that we just give -- more money and power they'll solve all our problems.
And maybe the -- is catching on here as a family in California -- -- copy and put it on their house.
Of course some people don't -- -- side.
At the Albuquerque airport TSA screeners -- -- for inspection and returned it in pieces I had that make this new.
I don't claim to have a right to carry my protest -- through airport security but on my own property I would think sell.
But in -- -- Virginia business owner put this sign on his own property here complains that after.
Fifty years on the street 78 years in Norfolk.
He and his hundreds of workers are now threatened by politicians who want to take his business through eminent domain that's the law the -- Politicians condemn your property for what they called public use.
-- -- put that sign up the city said it violates zoning rules and ordered him to take it down or pay fines of a thousand bucks per day.
The -- still up because the Institute for Justice took up his case -- a libertarian law firm.
And they paid First Amendment lawyer Steve Simpson to defend the businesses right to protest so.
What into bureaucrats say was wrong with a sign.
John what they said was that the sign is too big this is assigned its 375 square feet Bob Wilson our client who's the proprietor of central radio.
Put this sign on -- building because he wants to be heard he is really angry that his his land is being taken.
So he put the assignment that you just saw up there in the city says take it down its -- bigger thousand bucks today but they backed off once you've got -- -- well that's that's not surprising oftentimes they'll they'll come out with you know the guns blazing and as soon as they find out that area.
A property owner of small business has IJ or lawyers on board and is willing to sue them.
All of a sudden their tune changes a little machine -- you know we really didn't mean it -- mean nobody knows what the rules all right assume in this town and on.
A city building in that town -- here's a banner advertising the hockey playoffs.
Which is much bigger more than twice the size of central radio so.
Yeah that's right you know you -- to driver in town you'll see all kinds of signs on other buildings.
That are as large as if not larger than my client signs Old Dominion University.
Which is the entities that tell our clients plan is going to be taken to.
To be well let let's explain that -- Have background in the original reason for the fight central radio which first 75 years -- work for the navy and these days they install these surveillance cameras and navy ships than.
-- nor forks and redevelopment and housing authority he declared central radios property polite and then.
-- local judges and politicians to improve -- being taken from the owner and get into.
This university for a student center it's absolutely ridiculous you can -- -- -- the -- not invited.
And eminent domains and other -- -- let's stick with your free speech issue the sign in the -- we we talked to the city attorney and the some of the statements are telling.
Zoning -- tinkered with every ten years or so has made daunting to deal with can get convoluted to understand.
-- nobody knows what these rules are they keep passing more.
That's an understatement to say that they can get convoluted I'm a lawyer -- a lawyer for about eighteen years I -- to decide -- I frankly can't tell.
Why it is that some of these buildings are allowed to have.
Banners on the -- our clients are not so says it can be a safety issue.
The permit process for -- to make sure it's fire retardant.
And made of appropriate materials.
I safety issue this is that this is say a cloth banner -- you what's gonna happen and might blow off the building get stuck on the fence.
I mean John if you look around you'll see that all the other buildings in the area have been cleared so what happens that.
The sign comes off and it blows into an empty lot somewhere they'll -- -- back up and stick it back on the building it's not a safe trip over yeah.
The most telling -- the law does not require the city to allow people the most convenient way to speak out and protect well what the Supreme Court has held is that people have a right to protest what their government is doing and that's when -- -- the most convenient way is this big -- at least sign on the building the neighbors' eyes -- strain well -- the -- can avert their -- if they don't wanna look at the -- -- -- -- no -- -- -- -- -- can be legitimate -- it prevents.
People from using signs in a way that might harm traffic.
Present a safety hazard inhibit other people's ability to use their property that's obviously know how but beatification -- -- well really ugly and stuff.
It's.
Beautification is in the eye of the beholder I don't think that there should be a legitimate grounds but even though the courts have on occasion said it is.
In this case.
That the sign -- possibly present any problem that's in.
And it's in that admits -- a a number of empty lots because the city is gone and knocked all the buildings down so.
You know -- not like there's some aesthetic problem with having that a sign on the side of the building.
Thank you Steve Simpson from the Institute for Justice.
