Mamaroneck Mayor Issued Summonses for Signs

Print
rosenblum sign

Campaign sign on 210 Mamaroneck Avenue

 

The Campaign of Mayor Norman Rosenblum, who is running for re-election November 3, has received at least 7 summonses for illegal campaign signs. Village code restricts the size of political signage to 16 square feet.

One of those violations is copied below.

Residents complained two years ago when Rosenblum reportedly did the same thing, which gives the violator 90 days to remedy, which was after the election was held.

“How can we have confidence in the current mayor to uphold the Village laws protecting our rights as citizens when he  does not abide by those laws himself?” asks Mamaroneck Resident Kate Priest.

Copies of summonses for illegal campaign sign violations in the Village of Mamaroneck were obtained by theLoop for 119 New St., 307 Mamaroneck Avenue, 631 West Boston Post Road, 1 Station Plaza, 116 Soundview Ave., 406 West Boston Post Road and 210 Mamaroneck Avenue.

We have reached out to the Mayor for a response.

Related Posts

15 thoughts on “Mamaroneck Mayor Issued Summonses for Signs

  1. I was driving up Mam’k Ave the other day. Mid block, there is Norman jay walking while a group of kids is using the designated cross walks.Apparently signage is not the only thing he has disregard for.Not a great example.

  2. There does not have to be a lawsuit to change the law, it can be done with three votes of the Board of Trustees. It seems like Rosenblum is more interested in ignoring the law than obeying it or amending it. Shame on him. What kind of example does he set for residents?
    Rosenblum’s signs even cut up are not legal. Either the poster’s claiming that are shilling for the Mayor or can’t measure correctly, just like the Mayor.

    • Howard, you neglect to mention that Democrats have a 3-2 majority on the board. Mayor Rosenblum can NOT unilaterally change the law. No one here is shilling for the Mayor. That sign is reasonable; it’s not a huge billboard. And no one mentions the Democrats putting signs on Village property, which I believe is also prohibited.

  3. The issuance of seven summonses by the Code Enforcement Officer has the potential for seven lawsuits being filed against the village. Every one of those summonses should be voided based upon the Village Attorney’s opinion that the code is unconstitutional.

  4. The supreme court found that visual clutter is not a compelling enough government interest to make a sign law content-based. It doesn’t matter whether the local law was bipartisan or not. The bottom line is that it’s unconstitutional.

  5. The sign ordinance was a bi-partisan ordinance agreed to by both political parties. The intent of the law was to keep Mamaroneck free of campaign clutter and visual eyesores. It was a gentleman’s agreement that was adhered to by both sides until 2013.

  6. The Code Enforcement Officer should be made aware of the fact that she is enforcing a law which is unconstitutional. She should also be aware that if she had taken the time to measure THE THREE SIGNS, she would have found that they were in compliance with the current law, albeit unconstitutional.

  7. To answer the question, “If Mr Santoro and Mr Rosenblum felt this way, why didn’t they address the issue two years ago?”, the Supreme Court decision which rendered the Village Code unconstitutional, was decided JUST FOUR MONTHS AGO!

  8. First, thank you to the Loop for now allowing comments. I’d be curious as to know whether the Mayor has responded yet to the Loop, or if there’s been any follow up. If he has, I’d like to see a revision to the story. As I understand, the sign is in technical compliance as although it appears to be a single sign, it is actually three separate signs. I also understand, and have heard that the Village agrees the law is unconstitutional. Further, I understand that signs around the village are being stolen, and pictures of people with signs in their yard are being posted clearly identifying those properties. Requests from the homeowners to take down the pictures from websites have been ignored. I also have yet to see coverage of the frivolous lawsuits being filed on behalf of the Democratic Committee of Mamaroneck trying to push their opponents off the ballot. Finally, I hope that the Loop will cover not just these issues, but also some of the outrageous and inaccurate claims being made by the Democrats running in this election about the TOD law, and their xenophobic comments. All sides should be heard. As a native and former resident, I take a great interest in the community. Such silly politics at the local level are counter-productive. I encourage all residents, of either party, to listen to both sides and their concerns.

  9. Why didn’t Rosenblum/Santoro address the unconstitutionality of the law? Because they way for it to be addressed is by someone suing. Sooner or later a resident will sue.
    Village law imposing the size of political signs to be smaller than other type of signs, is unconstitutional. Censoring certain category of speech is a content based restriction and makes it unconstitutional. Censorship of political speech.
    The real issue is that law needs to be struck down. Also, I find it hypocritical that Rosenblum/Santoro are being lambasted when their opponents Natchez/Burt have their own political signs illegally installed on Village/public property.

  10. At last night’s debate, Lou Santoro said the sign law was unconstitutional.
    If Mr Santoro and Mr Rosenblum felt this way, why didn’t they address the issue two years ago?

    At the village BOT meeting on October 28, 2013, I asked Mayor Rosenblum why he didn’t agree with the violation issued by the then building inspector? I asked what this meant for the way our village rules are enforced?

    The mayor did not answer me. He waited until I left the room and then stated that my behavior was politically driven.
    Since we were in the midst of a political campaign, and the illegal, oversized signs were hanging all over the village, when else would I, or anyone else be moved to ask such a question?

    I maintain that our village officials must abide by the same rules as the rest of us. They don’t get to pick and choose which rules they want to obey. Mr Rosenblum took an oath of office, to uphold the laws of our village as mayor. However, it is evident that he chooses to ignore this oath when it suits him.

    • Your entire comment is based upon a local law which is unconstitutional. The Village Attorney has advised the Board of Trustees of this. If the law is unconstitutional, the summonses should NOT have been issued. Case closed!

    • That’s not how the Law works. If a law/practice is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, all laws everywhere that are the same or have the same unconstitutional effect are null and void, without any further action.

      Take, for example, the ruling saying bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. This takes effect as soon as the ruling is handed down. Same-sex couples who want to get married didn’t/don’t have to wait for the Kentucky or Tennessee legislatures to re-write their laws, because those laws have been deemed void by the Supreme Court.

      The same thing applies for the Village’s sign law. The Supreme Court, in Reed v. Town of Gilbert ruled that sign laws that discriminate on the contents of the sign (political v. commercial) are unconstitutional. This is the final word, and residents do not have to wait for the Board of Trustees to change the code to something constitutional.

      If the Village attempts to enforce the sign code despite the Reed ruling, the Village opens itself up to being sued under Federal civil rights laws. In fact, if the Village doesn’t change the code to make it constitutional, any resident who feels censored by the sign law has standing to sue.

      If anyone is reading this and has received a ticket or Order to Remedy over a political sign (regardless of which campaign they support), please contact my office at 914-341-1364. We are providing free representation to any Village resident or property owner affected by this unconstitutional law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *