Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Legal Director Mary Riley Administrative Director Allison K. Aranda, Esq. Senior Staff Counsel Bo ard of D irec tors John R. Streett, Esq. Chairman Dana Cody, Esq. Marcella Tyler Ketelhut Terry L. Thompson, Esq. Colette Wilson, Esq. Anthony E. Wynne, JD Advisory Board The Hon. Steve Baldwin San Diego, California The Rev. Michael R. Carey, OP, JD Colorado Daniel Cathcart, Esq. Los Angeles, California The Hon. William P. Clark Paso Robles, California Raymond Dennehy, PhD. San Francisco, California The Rev. Joseph D. Fessio, SJ San Francisco, California The Hon. Ray Haynes Riverside, California James Hirsen, Esq. Riverside, California The Hon. Howard Kaloogian Los Angeles, California David Llewellyn, Esq. Sacramento, California Anne J. OConnor, Esq. New Jersey Charles E. Rice, Esq. South Bend, Indiana Ben Stein, Esq. West Hollywood, California Andrew Zepeda, Esq. Beverly Hills, California Nort hern Ca li forni a (Administration) P.O. Box 2105 Napa, California 94558 (707) 2246675 Sout hern Ca li forn ia P.O. Box 1313 Ojai, California 93024 (805) 6401940
January 9, 2012 Mohammed Nuru, Interim Director Department of Public Works City Hall, Room 348 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION Dear Mr. Nuru: We were contacted recently by a number of San Francisco residents and organizations concerned about banners that are currently hung on city property along Market Street from Hyde Street to Jones Street and 3nd Street to Pearce Street. These seventy banners display pro-abortion slogans along with the names and web addresses of various pro-abortion organizations. These banners do not comply with San Francisco Public Works Code Article 5.6, section 184.78, governing the issuance of permits for banners on city utility poles. Section 184.78(c) provides, Only the following banners may be posted on City-owned utility poles: City-sponsored banners, City- funded event banners, City-wide event banners, City convention facility banners, and City neighborhood banners. The pro- abortions banners hung on city property on Market Street do not fit into any of these categories. According to media reports, the banners are sponsored by an organization called the Silver Ribbon Campaign. The website of the Silver Ribbon Campaign (oursilverribbon.org) confirms these reports. The Silver Ribbon campaign website states, The San Francisco banners aim to spark conversations and to help build momentum concerning womens rights. The banners identify no City-wide event sponsored by the Silver Ribbon Campaign. Rather, the website states only that it plans a virtual march to be conducted on-line. Thus, the banners are not announcing or promoting a City-wide event that take[s] place in the City and that reasonably expect[s] an in-person attendance of anyone. Section 184.78(c)(6) The banners also violate several other provisions of section 184.78 and accompanying regulations. DPW Order No. 175,208
provides.
Sponsors
will
be
restricted
to
their
logo
or
company
name
in
the
bottom
15
%
of
the
proposed
banner
and
shall
not
include
any
advertisement
or
slogan.
Many
of
the
banners
are
emblazoned
with
the
Silver
Ribbon
logo,
taking
up
the
majority
of
space
on
the
banner,
with
the
remaining
space
taken
up
by
slogans.
Other
banners
contain
the
names
and
web
addresses
of
other
organizations,
taking
up
well
over
15%
percent
of
the
area
of
the
banner.
Although
these
organizations
are
not
technically
sponsors
of
the
banners,
it
clearly
is
contrary
to
the
intent
of
the
law
to
allow
one
sponsoring
organization
to
erect
banners
that
are
effectively
advertisements
for
other
organizations.
In
any
event,
these
banners,
too,
bear
slogans,
in
violation
of
this
regulation.
Subsection
(f)(2)(A)
states
that
banners
may
not
be
posted
on
the
historic
and
decorative
lamp
posts
on
Market
Street,
unless
permitted
for
an
event
(A)
that
results
in
the
closure
of
all
or
a
portion
of
Market
Street
and
(B)
for
which
the
event
sponsor
has
already
obtained
the
necessary
permits
for
such
closure.
Again,
the
Silver
Ribbon
Campaign
has
no
such
planned
event
and
the
banners
do
not
purport
to
be
promoting
any
such
event.
They
are
simply
banners
with
pro-abortion
slogans.
The
Department
of
Public
Works
approved
the
Silver
Ribbon
Campaigns
application
for
a
banner
permit
in
flagrant
contravention
of
the
applicable
law.
It
is
clear
that
it
did
so
in
order
to
accommodate
a
preferred
viewpoint
(pro-abortion)
and
to
denigrate
the
opposing
viewpoint
(pro-life)
of
participants
in
the
West
Coast
Walk
for
Life,
which
will
be
held
on
Market
Street
on
January
21.
Public
Works
Code
Article
5.6,
section
184.61
declares
any
sign
illegally
posted
on
public
property
to
be
a
public
nuisance.
Pursuant
to
section
184.64,
the
Department
of
Public
Works
is
authorized
to
move
illegal
signs.
Private
parties
may
also
file
an
action
to
abate
a
public
nuisance.
Please
inform
me
within
48
hours
whether
the
City
intends
to
abate
this
nuisance
by
removing
or
causing
the
removal
of
the
banners,
or,
in
the
alternative,
whether
it
contends
that
the
banners
in
fact
comply
with
the
Code.
If
I
do
not
hear
from
the
City
by
noon
on
January
11,
we
will
assume
that
the
City
does
not
intend
to
address
the
situation,
and
we
will
proceed
with
an
action
to
abate
the
nuisance,
including
seeking
immediate
injunctive
relief,
as
well
as
other
relief
relating
to
the
Citys
unlawful
viewpoint
discrimination.
Very
truly
yours,
Catherine
W.
Short
cc:
Dennis
Herrera,
Esq.
Media
LIFE: AT THE HEART OF THE LAW LLDF.org