Billboards (updated with replies)
December 13, 2006
As a result of this:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/print.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10415146
I sent this:
To: mayor@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.hucker@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.abel@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.armstrong@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.boyle@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.casey@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.caughey@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.christian@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.fryer@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.hinchcliff@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.leighton@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.millar@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.milne@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.mulholland@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.northey@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.raffills@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.sefuiva@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.simpson@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.storer@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.walsh@aucklandcity.govt.nz
Subject: Billboards
Dear Councillor,
I strongly urge you to NOT ban billboards from central Auckland. This is stupid, petty, and frankly, ludicrous.
More importantly, however, it would be a violation of property rights, as well as free speech. If somebody wants to let the world know what they think, they should have the right to put their message on their building, or put a sign on their property.
Do not presume that you have the moral right to force other people to comply with your aesthetic preferences. That is the absolute height of arrogance, and will be remembered with justified rancour by the sensible citizens of Auckland.
Regards
Julian Pistorius
--
www.julianpistorius.com
021 377 454
"..It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
Samuel Adams (1722-1803), was known as the "Father of the American Revolution."
Update:
Replies received so far:
Toni Millar
I have spoken very clearly for Bill Boards and against the proposed By-law.
Toni Millar
Auckland City Councillor
Graeme Mulholland
Julian
May I urge you to read a copy of the proposed Signs and Billboard By Law
in order to have at your disposal the correct information on which to
make a judgement.
You obviously do not fully understand that a billboard is someone else
putting one of their signs on your building, and not a sign on their own
building, so as such would not impinge property rights.
May I also encourage you to put in a submission to the by law review if
you so wish.
Regards
Cr Graeme Mulholland
Toni Millar
(I don't think Graeme understands what property rights mean. This is quite a concern, considering he is supposed to be protecting them, and is also a Justice of the Peace.)
Dear Julian
Unfortunately we did not have the numbers - sorry. But we put up a jolly good fight. However submission period is extended till 2 March.
Kind regards
Toni Millar
Auckland City Councillor
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/print.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10415146
I sent this:
To: mayor@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.hucker@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.abel@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.armstrong@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.boyle@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.casey@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.caughey@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.christian@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.fryer@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.hinchcliff@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.leighton@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.millar@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.milne@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.mulholland@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.northey@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.raffills@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.sefuiva@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.simpson@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.storer@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.walsh@aucklandcity.govt.nz
Subject: Billboards
Dear Councillor,
I strongly urge you to NOT ban billboards from central Auckland. This is stupid, petty, and frankly, ludicrous.
More importantly, however, it would be a violation of property rights, as well as free speech. If somebody wants to let the world know what they think, they should have the right to put their message on their building, or put a sign on their property.
Do not presume that you have the moral right to force other people to comply with your aesthetic preferences. That is the absolute height of arrogance, and will be remembered with justified rancour by the sensible citizens of Auckland.
Regards
Julian Pistorius
--
www.julianpistorius.com
021 377 454
"..It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
Samuel Adams (1722-1803), was known as the "Father of the American Revolution."
Update:
Replies received so far:
Toni Millar
I have spoken very clearly for Bill Boards and against the proposed By-law.
Toni Millar
Auckland City Councillor
Graeme Mulholland
Julian
May I urge you to read a copy of the proposed Signs and Billboard By Law
in order to have at your disposal the correct information on which to
make a judgement.
You obviously do not fully understand that a billboard is someone else
putting one of their signs on your building, and not a sign on their own
building, so as such would not impinge property rights.
May I also encourage you to put in a submission to the by law review if
you so wish.
Regards
Cr Graeme Mulholland
Toni Millar
(I don't think Graeme understands what property rights mean. This is quite a concern, considering he is supposed to be protecting them, and is also a Justice of the Peace.)
Dear Julian
Unfortunately we did not have the numbers - sorry. But we put up a jolly good fight. However submission period is extended till 2 March.
Kind regards
Toni Millar
Auckland City Councillor
Duncan Bayne says:
December 12, 2006 @ 21:26 — Reply
Aesthetics? I fear you're being a bit optimistic there.
I think this is very closely related to the attempt to restrict criticism of the Government.
I don't believe for a moment that it is coincidence that the Auckland City Council has suddenly turned against billboards at exactly the same time as the Government is trying to grant itself unprecedented power over free expression. No, I think this is part of the same grand plan ... and possibly another attempt by Mother Hubbard to earn himself a gong.
I mean, how much easier for Labour would it be if they didn't have to put up with these come the next election?
Julian Pistorius says:
December 12, 2006 @ 21:30 — Reply
Hmm... I suspected as much, but you make a very convincing case for it. Send them an email.
Rick Giles says:
December 13, 2006 @ 03:34 — Reply
Bit conspiratorial there Dunk!
Sandi Ashworth says:
December 13, 2006 @ 15:41 — Reply
I think exactly the same thing Duncan.
Especially when you consider the success that National has had with its billboards and secondly, if Labour do decide to pay it back, they are hardly going to be able to afford to rent a billboard, besides paying for the graphics.
Here is a copy of my emails:
cr.caughey@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.fryer@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.mulholland@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.sefuiva@aucklandcity.govt.nz, cr.storer@aucklandcity.govt.nz, mayor@aucklandcity.govt.nz
Dear Councillor's and Mayor,
I wish to voice my absolute disgust that you are even
considering banning billboards from the Auckland CBD.
Your intention to dictate to commerce is appalling
enough, but your intentions turn Auckland into a city
akin to Moscow and East Berlin, is nothing short of
senseless.
How embarrassing for New Zealand.
Vibrant, successful international cities are driven by
vibrant successful commerce. Could you imagine Time
Square with no billboards? The only cities that I
have visited (I have have travelled the world), that
are free of billboards are or were all communist.
You have NO right to impose your taste upon anybody
else.
How dare you!
Yours most emphatically,
Sandra Ashworth
Auckland.
Julian Pistorius says:
December 13, 2006 @ 15:53 — Reply
Hi Sandi,
It is a bit suspicious, isn't it? I definitely wouldn't rule it out, given the propensity for this government to try to suppress opinions of dissent.
Cheers
Julian
Sus says:
December 13, 2006 @ 16:15 — Reply
Good letters. Have shamelessly plundered from both! I don't live in Auckland, but any chance to give statist sods a serve suits me just fine.
Sandi Ashworth says:
December 13, 2006 @ 21:51 — Reply
Nice to know you got more than one reply Julian.
I have only received one reply (last night)
"Sandra
The very role of Local Government, under Government legislation is to
review their By Laws and this is simply a draft of that review open for
public submission, which I trust you will do.
Regards
Cr Graeme Mulholland"
You can send submissions on-line, which is great, but I think it might be prudent to post in a letter as well.
Mr Brash for one, knows first hand, how some dirty people can play around with personal emails.
Sandi Ashworth says:
December 14, 2006 @ 16:34 — Reply
Visual pollution? Not according to the Greens.
“Some classy innovative billboards
have been produced by Green Party local body candidates. Here is Wellington city council candidate Celia Wade-Brown's billboard featuring a real bike.”
Has the Auckland Council considered what the ban might mean to Road Safety billboards?
Check out these wonderfully creative billboards
Kane Bunce says:
December 14, 2006 @ 19:06 — Reply
My email said:
Dear Councilor,
I strongly urge you to NOT ban billboards from central Auckland. This is stupid, irrational, petty, ludicrous, crazy, and immoral.
It would be a violation of property rights and free speech. If somebody wants to let others put things on their buildings they have the right to do this. That's what property rights are: the right to do with your property as you wish. And the person who owns the ad has the right to express their view.
Do not presume that you have the moral right to force other people to comply with your aesthetic preferences. That is totally arrogant and will be remembered with justified hate by the sensible citizens of Auckland.
You have no right to do such a thing. The only rights belong with the building owner and the advertiser.
Regards,
Kane Bunce
Duncan Bayne says:
December 16, 2006 @ 18:22 — Reply
Matt McCarten makes it perfectly clear in this column that the billboard removal is a scheme to restrict political speech:
My strong advice to the councillors fighting against these billboards is that if they don't get rid of them before the next election in October, they can count on them being used to promote their opponents with the intent of removing them from office.