* DNAInfo…
Those who travel through the busy intersection of Lincoln Avenue, Fullerton Avenue and Halsted Street might have noticed the giant sign hanging over the McDonald’s that reads “Chicago Republican Party, Chris Cleveland, Chairman.”
The city recently issued the owner of the building at 2420 N. Lincoln Ave. a violation for putting up the sign without a permit, threatening to fine the group if it doesn’t follow city protocol, according to the complaint. The chairman of the Chicago Republican Party called the request “unconstitutional.” […]
“I refuse to ask permission for any government entity before engaging in political speech. It’s unconstitutional and offensive,” Cleveland said in an interview.
There’s an error in that second paragraph. The city is going after the building owner, not the Chicago GOP.
Still, it seems like more than a bit excessive on its face. Just one more story about those needless and burdensome city sign regulations.
* But all is not as it seems…
City officials aren’t the only ones fed up with the Chicago Republican Party’s giant sign.
The sign, which was installed by the group at 2420 N. Lincoln Ave. last fall without a permit, is covering a big window in Tom Alcock’s psychology office — and he’s not happy about it.
“This has been really hard on me,” Alcock said. “I’ve lost sleep and pounds trying to protect my business.” […]
Alcock said not only does the sign violate city law, but it also violates Alcock’s lease.
Um, yeah, I’d be upset too if some guy violated my lease by covering up my office window with a giant sign…
Cover up your own window, freedom fighter dude.
…Adding… I thought I remembered those signs. Thanks to a commenter for this link.
- Rahm's Parking Meter - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 12:53 pm:
I go by there often, and taking my Partisan D Hat, it is an eyesore.
I side completely against Cleveland. He is just being a jerk.
- South of Sherman - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 12:55 pm:
So in the view of the Chicago Republican Party, complying with building codes and permit requirements is now “unconstitutional”?
The next clue that guy gets will be his first.
- Mama - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 12:57 pm:
What in the world is wrong with people thinking they don’t have to follow the law?
If I was that doctor, I would stop paying the owner rent and move to a different building. He can prove the owner breached his contract.
- wordslinger - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 1:01 pm:
Geez, is the only way a Chicago Republican can get any publicity is by being a childish jerk?
You don’t have a Constitutional right to block somebody’s else’s window.
Didn’t they cover that in the dorm-room debates, between binge games of Risk?
- weltschmerz - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 1:08 pm:
Many years ago, I worked for the City of Chicago for one summer. One of our jobs was to photograph signs on buildings to see if they complied with an ordinance which required the sign to be in proportion to the front of the entity. Most weren’t close and we had a theory as to the purpose of our work.
- Moby - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 1:11 pm:
So, is the Chicago Republican Party housed in this building? I’m confused about the purpose of the sign.
- Chicago Cynic - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 1:18 pm:
I’m confused as well. Does Chris Cleveland own the building?
- Johnny Pyle Driver - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 1:23 pm:
I’m on no sleep. NO SLEEP!
Oh I’m stressed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUvzzEtNevY
- LizPhairTax - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 1:24 pm:
Anybody else remember the first season of this drama? The new cast is good, but it’s the same plot.
http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/rauners-digital-sign-biz-thrives-under-rahm-city-halls-rules/
- lake county democrat - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 1:24 pm:
He must think political speech is like eminent domain. Oh wait, Republicans are allegedly against eminent domain.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 1:27 pm:
The last thing we should be doing is helping Cleveland raise national money from the network of aggrieved conservative donors. I bet he’s using media stories like this one to plead for cash to help him fight Chicago’s leftist government thugs who are trying use big government against the freedom-loving patriots of the Chicago GOP.
Don’t. Fall. For. It.
- RNUG - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 1:34 pm:
== Oh wait, Republicans are allegedly against eminent domain. ==
Except when they can use it to seize property that can be flipped into private hands and profited from … and now, apparently, erect signs.
- Sir Reel - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 1:40 pm:
Following Cleveland’s logic, the good doctor would be within his constitutional rights to take down the sign. This is called anarchy. Seems to be prominent in the Republican play book.
- Jeff Trigg - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 1:41 pm:
You’d think a psychologist would be able to handle this without losing sleep and weight, but that’s just an observation.
- Snoopy Do - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 1:41 pm:
The real story should be how did this guy get elected chairman of the Chicago GOP… He also ran for Cook County Chair last time, this goof might run again….
- W. N. Bilbo - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 1:42 pm:
I wonder if Mr. Cleveland is willing to pay the fines for the building owner. You know, money where mouth is.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 1:44 pm:
Hey! Show some respect here! The first floor of that building 2402 N. Lincoln Avenue, Chicago, IL 60614, for a period of nearly 75 years, once housed my family’s “Seminary Restaurant.”
When I last drove by the building about a week ago, it looked like a vinyl sign draped over the side of the upstairs building, which housed the (then) landlord of this and the neighboring buildings. It certainly isn’t an electric sign such as those that had local Democrats in a tizzy during the 2014 elections in Chicago.
What makes the building REALLY ugly are those new cell phone towers that sit on the roof! Who approved THAT?
- Belden Ave. - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 1:50 pm:
I used to go into the Seminary Restaurant as a kid and Mark Aguirre, Terry Cummings and the rest of the DePaul Basketball squad would be eating while getting their ankles taped at the Restaurant. in the early 1990’s the 2nd floor housed Community driving school where I took Driver’s ED with Rich Daley’s son Patrick.
- Name withheld - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 2:00 pm:
Easy solution. Open window. Take sledgehammer to anything between you and open sky.
- Ontologica - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 2:04 pm:
Rich, it is not a “giant electronic sign.” It’s cloth. More fantastic reporting from a liberal hack who can’t understand fundamental free speech.
- Politix - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 2:11 pm:
Chicago GOP…now there’s something my eyes don’t come across every day.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 2:12 pm:
===who can’t understand fundamental free speech. ===
LOL
I live it every day, doooode.
- Me too - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 2:15 pm:
Kids in ICUs because we can’t afford nurses? If he’s not busting us out, I don’t know what he’s doing. I mean, trying to save a nickel here and a nickel there, stealing six quarters from special funds, yet still paying what 30x the cost of care because #unions=bad. This is beyond the pale.
- Demoralized - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 2:27 pm:
==More fantastic reporting from a liberal hack who can’t understand fundamental free speech.==
He seems to be quite the proponent of free speech given he allowed you to say such a thing on his privately run blog.
- JustRight - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 2:28 pm:
How is this a problem? An “eyesore”??? Really??? It’s right above a McDonald’s! …enough said.
- anon - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 2:30 pm:
Just Right, this photo was taken during the daytime. This sign is illuminated at night, thus the eyesore. Also, it says Republican on it.
- siriusly - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 2:47 pm:
So sign codes are unconstitutional?
When the political party that controls Congress and the majority of Governor’s offices across the country declares that it does not need to follow the law - it will only serve to encourage more law breaking.
So how can they possibly wonder why they have a presidential nominee who encourages racism and xenophobia ? It’s because they encouraged racism and xenophobia.
I am sad for our country and for the Republican party. We would be better as a country without this sort of baloney from the GOP.
It’s not the content of your sign that is illegal Mr.
- efudd - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 2:53 pm:
So, this guy is told to abide by city regulations and take down a sign that is blocking the view of another tenet and all of a sudden he’s Thomas Paine?
I’m apologize for painting all GOP’ers with the same brush, but why is something always a constitutional issue with this bunch?
- Colin O'Scopey - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 2:56 pm:
Tom Alcock’s problem could be solved as easily as opening his window and flicking a $2.00 razor from Home Depot. Problem solved.
- Me too - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 2:57 pm:
Oops. Wrong thread. My comment was supposed to be in “Our Sorry State”
- TinyDancer(FKA Sue) - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 3:01 pm:
You mean the Republican party doesn’t have an office there?
I just assumed they were living upstairs of the Micky D’s and that the sign was just their annoying shingle.
There’s not even a phone number on it. So, they’re just announcing the existence of the Republican party to the neighborhood?
- Me too - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 3:02 pm:
Except pensions efudd. Then that darn piece of paper doesn’t apply. The dems did the same with SB1, and man did someone screw up by getting the unions back firmly in the d column. Pat Quinn lost because of things like SB1, and you don’t see that the road to gaining r seats is paved by the unions? It takes a seriously irrational hatred to go after them when they were primed to be your ally. This more than anything is proof that the guv is not capable of participating in politics. He doesn’t realize that power doesn’t come from the office. It comes from the people who elected you, and he promptly sold out the 40% of AFSCME members who voted for him believing that the state needed Shaking Up TM. They now long for the days before said shake up, most of them anyway.
- Anonymous - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 3:02 pm:
This seems to be a new spin on the GOP being the party of OBSTRUCTION!
The Party of “NO!” says NO VIEW FOR YOU!
- cdog - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 3:04 pm:
that was me @ 3:02! OOPS!
Variations on Obstructionism.
- allknowingmasterofracoondom - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 3:07 pm:
This is so hypocritical it is almost unbelievable. How many are aware of the Mayors digital billboard deal in Chicago?
The City has this digital billboard deal with JC Decaux and Interstate Outdoor where this private company built huge digital billboards on City owned property and pay the city for the rights to do so. This was a City no bid deal, masqueraded as a general Request for Proposals. None of those City properties slated for billboards meet the actual City code that would allow billboards, digital or otherwise. None of those properties meet State code that would allow billboards, digital or otherwise. In fact some of those properties don’t meet the Federal Highway Beautification Act. So the city passes the billboard deal anyway along with some ordinances that allow just these signs with just this group. Then the City goes to Springfield, and cuts a deal with the State to allow for just these signs that don’t meet State statutes. They did that by taking an insignificant Illinois House Bill about signs (a shell bill) that was kicked around Springfield for 10 months, and on the day before the State Legislative Session ended in Springfield, a magical amendment appeared to that bill that exempts the City deal only from State sign regulations.
And that City deal was not even cut with a Chicago company, or an Illinois company. A French company and a New Jersey Company. Not to mention that New Jersey company is owned by the Katz family (Lewis Katz tragically died in an airplane crash in 2014), who was/is a major donor to Clinton, Rahm, and Obama. This New Jersey company had no roots in the sign business in Chicago, none whatsoever, yet they were made part of a deal with JC Decaux, to get 49% of the deal for just being friends with Rahm.
But no mention of these signs that are 1200 square feet, glowing all day and night.
As the old saying goes, it is not what you know but who. No better example.
- Colin O'Scopey - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 3:23 pm:
@allknowing:
Nice attempt at “hey, look a squirrel”. This illegal sign on a building has absolutely nothing to do with the JC Decaux deal. What’s next? Are you going to attempt to tie this sign to closing Meigs Field?
- allknowingmasterofracoondom - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 3:34 pm:
@Colin O’Scopey
Irony. The JC Decaux signs were illegal as well, until the mayor and his springfield friends changed the laws for them and them only and nobody else.
This signs legality is in question as it does contain protected political speech.
So yea, look at that squirrel buddy.
- Huh? - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 3:40 pm:
My dad was a doc at Children’s Memorial. I would go with him on holidays and weekends to do rounds, check on his patients. Sometimes we would eat at the Seminary. Nice memories.
- Demoralized - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 3:43 pm:
==as it does contain protected political speech==
That doesn’t matter.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 3:43 pm:
===as it does contain protected political speech.===
I’m not sure a sign indicating the location of the offices of the Chicago Republican Party constitutes free speech, but whatever. Go with that. Make Cleveland a martyr. That’s what he wants.
Put that same sign on a city parkway and streets and san will have it in the back of a truck before you can say Grand Old Party.
- justthefacts - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 3:51 pm:
“Um, yeah, I’d be upset too if some guy violated my lease by covering up my office window with a giant sign…”
This is typical of today’s GOP, trampling on others rights in the name of “freedom”, “free speech”, “protecting the ballot/taxpayer”, and other vapid platitudes.
- Anon221 - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 3:56 pm:
From “Just Shoot Me” - anyone remember Jack and the giant American flag???
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0617970/
- Colin O'Scopey - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 4:09 pm:
@allknowing:
=until the mayor and his springfield friends changed the laws for them and them only and nobody else.=
And thereby made it legal.
- Truth be told - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 4:16 pm:
The Doctor doesn’t want to move because he put a lot of his own money into office renovations. The building also houses the Chicago Republican Party offices, which is why the sign is up.
Th e guy who put up the sign claims he did it because the city permitting process moves to slowly, and is unconstitutional besides.
I fail to see the constitutional issue. He could go through the permit process, and be granted one, although probably not as prominent as the one he put up. He doesn’t have the right to interfere with the Doctor’s enjoyment of his property rights granted under the lease.
This guy’s a scofflaw at best, a hypocrite and a criminal at worst
- Chicago Guy - Friday, Apr 8, 16 @ 4:38 pm:
Last summer the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on the regulation of signs, Reed v. Town of Gilbert. Don’t rely on my summary, but it basically said that municipalities cannot regulate signs based on the nature of the message. In this case, a transient church’s message on where it was meeting that week could not be held to more restrictive standards (i.e, size limits) than a political sign or an advertising sign. My impression is municipalities are still working through the implications of the ruling. That being said, my quick read is the underlying issue is municipalities can regulate political signs and political signs cannot receive favorable treatment.
The other issue is there are legitimate health and safety reasons for regulating signs. In the past there were more signs hanging over sidewalks. If not properly secured signs can crash to the ground or get torn off during a wind storm and cause problems.