Manuel, would you review this and let me know what your office's opinion is?
thanks dave >>> Dan Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/04/04 6:18 PM >>> With all due respect to Saint Paul City Attorney City Attorney, the City Real Estate Office and the Farmer's Market, I don't think that the proposed standard for distribution of literature and the exclusions of political activity at the Saint Paul Farmers Market will pass Constitutional muster. I just had this very instance arise 11 days ago at the National Sports Center in Blaine. I am one of the organizers of a new group, Taxpayers Against An Anoka County Vikings Stadium. On Tuesday, August 31st, the Vikings held a scrimmage and publicity blitz up in Blaine at the National Sports Center to try and generate publicity for a new stadium in Blaine. Another organizer, Ron Holch and I went upto the grounds of the National Sports Center to distribute a flayer about the Vikings effort called, "Tired of Your Tax Dollars Paying For Billionaire Sports Complexes". After about 5 minutes employees of the National Sports Center Foundation, which runs the National Sports Center, for the Minnesota Amateur Athletic Association, a state agency, ordered us off the premises of the National Sports Center. When we argued our Constitutional and First Amendment Right of Free Speech, they called the Blaine Police Department to escort us off. The Blaine Police said we could leaflet "across the street", just as Ms. Prince says the Farmers Market will allow. To make a long story short, we have already received oral and written apologies from the Minnesota Amateur Athletic Association and the National Sports Center Foundation. The National Sports Center Foundation has drafted guidelines to permit political speech, while excluding commercial activity. Paul Erickson, the Executive Director of the Minnesota Athletic Association, apologized for our exclusion and said "We had as much right to leaflet there as in front of the State Capital". Directors of the National Sports Center Foundation have been also been extremely apologetic about what happened and said that they were so used to excluding "commercial flyers", their staff did not know how to react properly, when the issue of protected speech was raised the first time in 14 years. These officials have acted with thought and sensitivity about what occurred and are making steps to see that this does not happen in the future. I would suggest the same situation exists in The Farmers Market. The management is certainly free to exclude commercial activity, but they cannot get by with excluding protected free speech by saying "We exclude all political speech." As long as it is a public facility and the public is invited in, political speech must also be allowed. If someone from the City Attorney's Office wants to try and distinguish the National Sports Center, which is owned by the state, and the Farmers Market, which is owned by the City of Saint Paul, I would like to hear it. Might I suggest that the City Attorney is setting the City up for another case with huge legal fees, just like the recent billboard case, if they take the position that political speech can be excluded from the Farmers Market. I would strongly suggest the City Council not listen to the City Attorney in this matter and get a second opinion, maybe from a Law Professor at William Mitchell, the U. or Hamline who specializes in Constitutional Law. Anyone want to challenge this in the meantime? Dan Dobson Summit Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Jon Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd largely second Bob's comments, particularly > about the distinction > between political and commercial speech (putting > aside for the moment my > opinions on recent major party conventions.) But I > would still suggest that > this provision might even be worse than nothing > because it creates enough > cloud of confusion that the Farmers' Market manager > can create arbitrary > distinctions over what is "political." > For example, he could allow the Twins to come in and > do "autograph signings" > and hand out literature during the height of a > stadium debate as a > "non-political or non-commercial" activity. But he > could then deny > volunteers opposing a publicly funded Twins stadium > the right to hand out > informational material at the Market. > But of course this is all hypothetical and would > never happen. > > Jon Kerr > West Side > > > It is nice to see this source, but it doesn't > appear to prohibit political > > canvassing, as long as no handbills are handed > out. All of the > > restrictions mentioned in the quoted passage refer > to commercial activity > > or distribution of printed material. It > doesn't sound to me like this > > clause, by itself, could be used to stop people > from soliciting political > > donations or signatures, or contact information, > or keep them from asking > > people to support a given candidate on election > day. Political speech > > and political activity operate under different > rules than commercial > > speech. > > > > If this is all there is, I don't think it > establishes a right to forbid > > political activity at the farmers market at all. > > > > Jane Prince said: > > > > > > To the St. Paul Issues Forum: > > > > > > With thanks to the City Attorney's Office, the > City Real Estate Office > > > and the Farmer's Market, I now have an answer to > the political action > > > question raised about the Farmer's Market > earlier this summer. The City > > > Market is regulated under the the Saint Paul > Legislative Code, Chapter > > > 11: > > > > > > "Sec. 11.13. No person shall distribute, > without the approval of the > > > market director, scatter about or post on the > city market any > > > advertising pamphlet, card, handbill or other > printed matter; nor shall > > > any person, except as may otherwise be provided > by this or other city > > > ordinances, beg, loiter, solicit patronage for > any business, or sell or > > > attempt to sell, display or demonstrate any > goods, merchandise real > > > estate, animals, vehicles or other materials or > things whatsoever on the > > > city market." > > > > > > In fairness to all political campaigns, the > Farmer's Market has now > > > adopted the policy that even if permission is > sought, the market will > > > not permit any political activity within the > market. It should be noted > > > that political activity is always allowed on the > public sidewalks, > > > across the street from the market. > > > > > > Jane Prince, Legislative Aide to Ward 4 City > Councilmember Jay Benanav > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/03/04 11:20AM > >>> > > > Send Stpaul mailing list submissions to > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide > Web, visit > > > http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or > body 'help' to > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so > it is more specific > > > than "Re: Contents of Stpaul digest..." > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > Please - Take the St. Paul Job Shadow Survey > > > Just 15 Questions: > > > http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=70658501784 > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > > > 1. court ruling on tax credits (Mike Fratto) > > > 2. RE: Gander Mountain Downtown St. Paul? > (Tim Erickson) > > > 3. Stpaul Digest, Smoking Ban Compromise - > Mayor Kelly Vetoed > > > the Compormise (Dan Dobson) > > > 4. RE: Gander Mountain Downtown St. Paul? > (John Harris) > > > 5. The real smoking ban compromise (Tom & > Elsa Thompson) > > > 6. Re: Gander Mountain Downtown St. Paul? > (John Mannillo) > > > 7. Re: So why not just compromise? (Tim > Erickson) > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 09:26:28 -0500 > > > From: "Mike Fratto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: [StPaul] court ruling on tax credits > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > > > > > As we discuss the proposed incentives St. Paul > offered Gander > > > Mountain to move to the First Trust building, a > federal appeals > > > court yesterday struck down a manufacturing tax > credit that Ohio > > > used in 1998 to help convince DaimlerChrysler to > build its new Jeep > > > assembly plant in Toledo. > > > > > > See: > > > > http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040903/NEWS02/409030456 > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike Fratto > > > Payne Phalen > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 2 > > > Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:33:51 -0500 > > > From: Tim Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: RE: [StPaul] Gander Mountain Downtown > St. Paul? > > > To: "St. Paul Issues Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; > format="flowed" > > > > > >>A couple of fallacies here. Major environmental > clean-up costs are > > > rarely > > >>borne by municipalities ... > > > > > > OK - I'll agree, that that all of these issues > are more complicated > > > than they might appear on the surface, but all > of them are legitimate > > > factors in some way or another. > > > > > > In terms of environmental costs. Whether or not > the city is > > > responsible for the costs of clean-up, it is a > cost === message truncated === _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
