jesus, talk about petty authority

[removed]

I hope this gains more attention, it’s an awesome bakery and the town official involved is a jackass.

Cringe government

Live free or die.

Ah, the article didn't make that clear. Is it the (typical) situation where there is one particular power-hungry individual on the ZB who just happens to have an issue?

*terms and conditions may apply

The guy bought it from the old owners to save a local institution.

If I was him I'd fucking torch the thing and let Conway rot. Nothing up there except angry bored cops, DO NOT DRIVE THROUGH CONWAY IF YOU CAN AVOID IT

The thing is, maybe that ordinance is in place so the town doesn’t have to deal with unsightly billboards or large signs. If they let him keep it, it won’t be long before another business tries to erect a large sign (that may not be as tasteful as the donut mural). Having come from a place that has ugly signs everywhere (Georgia), I can understand why the city wants to fight this.

Wow I was just looking at houses in Conway guess mot anymore. I’m moving to NH to get away from petty bullshit and over governance.

Lets be constructive, here.

Destroying your own property, and destroying a loved, local landmark - 0 points.

​

Letting the air out of the Asst. Zoning Inspectors tires when they're not looking - 1.5 points

Pouring sugar into their gas tank when they're not looking(hey, they're at a donut shop - they better have a sweet tooth) - 4 points.

Torching the Asst. Zoning Inspectors vehicle(only if it's an official vehicle, not personal) - 10 points (but only if at a safe distance from your donut shoppe - subtract 5 points if the blazing vehicle accidentally ignites said donut shoppe)

Drugging the Asst. Zoning Inspector, and take photos of them while in a semi-consensual act with one of the local moose population, and posting copies of the photos around town - 50 points

​

Just a few ideas. Trying to be constructive, yeah. Anybody else with some good ideas?

PS: #RESIST!

Government being the problem again

As i understand it, the town statutes essentially put him in violation. It was ignored until someone made a complaint, most likely, but now the town is forced to act on their bylaws. It's how it's written and it's stupid and the rules should be changed, but for now it is what it is.

Totally- I think many people in the town feel that this is not actually a sign, you can’t even see it if you’re driving from the south, it doesn’t say anything…just some cool paintings of donuts. And it’s not a billboard really either, it’s part of their building.

Yeah, I got that from the article, and thus the lawsuit by IJ (who I donate to, they do good work). I just didn't see in the article that it was a particular ZB member that was the problem point.

I wouldn't think that the Asst. Zoning Inspector, even if they sat on the board themselves, would have much power. It would be some other community member, probably some snobbish %1-er.

Let's just replace it wolfeboro pt2

I like wolfeboro. They should make a second one.

Oh, I totally understand. But, once you allow it and open that door, I think others will take advantage and erect their own, perhaps uglier, signage.

Exactly. The ordinance can be tweaked to allow it and keep giant billboards at bay, but as it's written you're right. Everyone here is flipping out about it being unjust, but it is in violation and the town can't just ignore it now. They should look at the laws they have on the books and see how they want to adjust it.

If this was a business people didn't like, they'd be slamming the business rather than the town ordinance. It's weird.

I keep expecting someone in this thread to say - come on guys calm down.

Then I remember where I am and embrace my feelings of agreement that you should bully the government

It could be anyone with a grievance, don't make assumptions as to why. Could be a poor transient vegan hippy living in their 1964 vw bus and doesn't like the fact they use eggs. See? We both have no idea on the source and motive..... Anyhow the key here is if people are outraged over this they should petition their local government to reassess the law and tweak it. That's how it's meant to work.

I think it's premature for him to create a franchise. He's probably spent a lot of his cash reserves on this fight.

Lets focus on crushing town Zoning Boards to a paste, one town at a time.

You don't want to make it too hard for the IJ.

No no I mean the town. Just... Move a bunch of shit in that says "wolfeboro pt 2 public library" and "Wolfeboro Boogaloo Elementary". Tell the zoning dorks they have no authority here.

Everyone is so nice in wolfeboro.

[deleted]

Leavitt’s is a great bakery in Conway. Town officials should back off on the signage issue…can’t we be free to express ourselves??? Is the First Amendment dead in NH??

If this was something that actually impacted where you buy a house in any way, then you need hobbies and a more serious reason to get out of bed every day my friend.

It says the vote to deny the variance was unanimous. Twice.

"get a sign permit or take down the mural forever."

So all he needs is a sign permit? Did I read that right?

NH has one of the largest state Gov't in the country

Then be a community and change the fucking laws. It's a small town, who do you think made the law trump or biden? FFS, the people who live there made it and can unmake it. For now the law stands. They can change it if they want

[deleted]

[deleted]

I'll take Felonies for Rest of My Life in Prison, Alex.

Not one of, the largest. We have the third largest legislature in the world behind the UScongress and UK parliament.

Yes they tell him to file for a sign permit knowing there's a 0% chance it will be given

Been there done that. Jump through infinite hoops while simultaneously cutting endless red tape and chasing the ever receeding goalposts. Fun!

OK

Ultimately, the best solution. Yeah.

:-D

An awesome bakery for sure, glad I don’t live too close.

I remembered hearing about this but wasn't sure if it was still true!

i wouldn't joke about people lighting cars on fire. Someone is apt to do it.

The citizens are the government and are the officials. If they want to change it they can. A business sign isn't exactly protected under the first amendment, unless you really really loved the citizens united Supreme Court ruling and want corporations to be further unfettered.

A fine example of perversion of justice.

A fine example of perversion of justice.

A fine example of perversion of justice.

He already tried to get a zoning variance twice, and got turned down unanimously both times.

He already tried to get a zoning variance twice, and got turned down unanimously both times.

please sign here that you accept hyper-inflated cost of living, bare minimum wage and that you will still be arrested for marijuana possession if caught in order to “live free or die”

please sign here that you accept hyper-inflated cost of living, bare minimum wage and that you will still be arrested for marijuana possession if caught in order to “live free or die”

-please sign here that you accept hyper-inflated cost of living, bare minimum wage and that you will still be arrested for marijuana possession if caught in order to “live free or die”

-please sign here that you accept hyper-inflated cost of living, bare minimum wage and that you will still be arrested for marijuana possession if caught in order to “live free or die”

this is the same town that recently denied an application by a local Dunkin to replace their drive-thru menu board... because it was internally lit, and the town has a ban on backlit signs.

I kind of figured that the part about not lighting your own donut shoppe on fire, and the part about the moose was sufficient tip-off that this was only tongue-in-cheek.

Thanks for being the wet blanket.

-please sign here that you accept hyper-inflated cost of living, bare minimum wage and that you will still be arrested for marijuana possession if caught in order to “live free or die”

-please sign here that you accept hyper-inflated cost of living, bare minimum wage and that you will still be arrested for marijuana possession if caught in order to “live free or die”

[removed]

off the top of my head I can think of 2 people i know personally who went to prison for deliberately setting cars on fire. Also note the burned out cars in the woods around Rochester, Manchester and many etc.

Blame me. Maybe it's shell shock / exploding car shock

[deleted]

The government is never more of the people by the people and for the people than in a small town. They can easily ratify and change the wording of the law if they care. This is a really simple one. As it's written it's outside the rules. What's the point of rules if we make acceptions because we like one thing more than another? Change the rule.

The government is never more of the people by the people and for the people than in a small town. They can easily ratify and change the wording of the law if they care. This is a really simple one. As it's written it's outside the rules. What's the point of rules if we make acceptions because we like one thing more than another? Change the rule.

I can understand how if the law is repealed, it could have unwanted consequences. But...is Conway really at risk of that? Billboards are pretty uncommon in NH as it is. I can't see people putting up billboards in the middle of nowhere.

And regardless of negative consequences anyway, I also don't see how it isn't a violation of the first amendment to make a law against putting up any sort of advertisement on land you own. Doesn't matter if it's a charming donut shop sign or ugly billboard for a strip club.

[deleted]

[deleted]

How about they wrap that part of the building in a large canvas tarp while they work on getting the regulations changed? While I think it’s a beautiful mural, unfortunately laws are laws. Everyone loves donuts, but what if a XXX shop decided to paint their building with the dildos they sell? It’s the same thing.

Remove the name from sign and it becomes a mural. He could easily just move the smaller sign part. This is a non-sense issue. Compliance with the law is easy and this fight is definitely not just about the sign.

FWIW, this article is written by the legal group representing the bakery's owner. As much as I agree with the plaintiff, it reads like a legal brief and meant to be as convincing and one-sided as possible.

Small town politics by morons with egos. He pissed someone off when he bought the place and they are looking to stick it to him simply because they can.

I'm not so sure a court will determine that the town can't enforce its own ordinances or that this particular ordinance in unconstitutional in some way.

Literally hundreds of towns across the country have similar ordinances that dictate house colors in historic districts and even the types of lighting that can be used. I know of towns in MA and CT that only allow black and white for retail signage. I think the towns ordinance will stand along with the towns ability to enforce it.

Time for binding town meeting votes again. Get rid of pathetic little Czar wannabes.

Lot's of stupid, unconstitutional laws on the books. That they exist doesn't mean they should be enforced.

Is the NH Supreme Court substantially more pro-free speech?

It's indicative of the culture, which is an important factor in many people's moving decisions.

I think it's hard to call it unconstitutional. And if they are on the books and everyone agrees they are unconstitutional and/or shouldn't be enforced then they should be removed. Otherwise what is the point of laws and rules at all?

Lot's of small towns are dominated by obdurate, petty tyrants that can't be easily influenced or ousted due to local "good 'ol boys" networks. That's why the national government sometimes had to step in and say "No, really, you can't just lynch black people."

What?!? How did me make the jump from small town new hampshire sign bylaws to lynching black people laws?!?

They're not at risk and they can completely alter the wording however they want. But that's the process, rewrite the law if you want it changed

In my view, laws exist to protect our right to life, liberty, and property. So, when the law itself violates those rights, then there is no moral or ethical obligation to obey or enforce it. For example, many towns used to have "sundown laws" that made it illegal for non-whites to remain in town after sunset. Do you think a sheriff charged with enforcing "sundown laws" had an ethical obligation to enforce them?

In this case, billboard regulations violate the property owners right to do with their property as they please, and violate the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech (" Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...")

Of course, the Constitution is just a piece of paper; what matters is whether there are enough people who value civil liberties that they're willing to protect other people's civil rights. I'm arguing that the townsfolk should defend this baker's free speech rights instead of slavishly obeying the local ordinance (just as I would advocate that folks living with "sundown town" laws on the books have no duty to enforce or obey them.)

Sure but does it not count as a first amendment violation?

I'm pointing out that some small town laws are a) immoral and shouldn't be obeyed/enforced b) often can't easily be changed by the people being victimized by them.

i don't live there bro idk what you want me to do

You two should become free-staters and start a podcast together that no one listens to

Yes, I want people to be able to show films that criticize government officials, regardless of their funding source. This is also the position of the ACLU:

" The ACLU has consistently taken the position that section 203 is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits the suppression of core political speech, and our amicus brief takes that position again."

I also favor letting bakers paint donut murals on their walls.

"what if a XXX shop decided to paint their building with the dildos they sell?"

I'm in favor of everyone's free speech rights, even if I don't like what they have to say. Let a thousand dildo murals bloom!

The town is fine with the small logo, that is allowed as a directional sign. The painting is whats in question.

I don't think that advertising for ones business is covered under the free speech amendment. There are sign laws everywhere, and if sign laws were a violation we would have seen it in the supreme court by now.

I don't know, leave it up to the people who do?

As long as we're making suggestions, may I suggest that you move to one of surrounding authoritarian states? That way, you can force bakers to paint their walls drab colors to your heart's content.

I'm also in favor of donut murals on a donut shop, but lets figure it out so we have laws that make sense and we are in line with what we have all agreed upon.

Avert your eyes then. Freedom does include people saying things you may not like.

well that's not really pointing out a NH law unless you want to source one. Its a completely off the deep hyperbolic statement. State and town laws can be more restrictive than the US or State constitution but they cannot be in violation of it, and as dumb as the people trying to take down this sign are, they're within regulation to do so. The people in the town should change that.

The linked article references many such cases, although I don't think they went to the Supreme Court. The fact that these cases didn't go to the supreme court, if anything, indicates that these laws were clearly unconstitutional and therefore didn't need to go that far.

Anyways, the supreme court has addressed freedom of speech laws as relates to billboards, such as this example last year. That case is not relevant to this case, ofc, since this bakery sign is not digital. Also, I'm not a constituional lawyer. I'm just asking questions about this because I'm genuinely curious.

Lot's of laws existed for decades before they were struck down as unconstitutional. What really matters is whether there is a culture of liberty, where people respect the free speech of others. I want to live in a state with a culture of liberty.

If he's forced to change the mural, he should repaint the donuts as giant assholes, prominently labeled with the names of the officials who voted against his variance permit.

Your continued correlation of this sign issue to historical abject racism in multiple threads is fucking weird and I am not going to get into it past here. This is not even close from a morality standpoint, and its gross to compare the two like they are equivalent. The people in the town can change the sign law as they all agree on and deem fit. A sign is not a person. Comparing this silly sign issue as a tribulation to those oppressed by sundown laws is fucking disgusting honestly.

The little sign seems like a part of tbe big sign. Thats seems lile the actual issue here. Separate them. Problem solved

I didn't say they were equivalently evil acts. I used the "sundown laws" as an example to establish the principle that there exist a ) immoral laws that should not be obeyed b) laws that can't be easily changed by the victim of the law.

While suppressing the baker's free speech rights is not an equivalent offense, it's a violation of his free speech rights (and therefore immoral) and trying to change the law is likely to be a futile effort (which I think the people making the suggestion know).

This is the speech of high school students.

If the people Conway don’t want the eyesores of big signs, they have every right to put that in zoning laws. It’s called democracy! Enjoying your Freedom responsibly doesn’t mean doing anything you want to do and the hell with everyone else.

No, in theory, towns aren't allowed to have laws more restrictive than the US or State constitution. That's why no state or city can pass sundown ordinances in modern times. Agree that the town should change the law (or lose the court case).

they can be more restrictive but not in violation of. FFS you and the sundown laws..

You can prohibit the sale of alcohol in a county or town. That's more restrictive but not in violation of the fucking constitution. What do you not understand? A permanent sign on a business is not protected via the first amendment or the constitution. Good lord.

Dude you're 20 years late to make that comment accurate. But for your enjoyment: No cap, fr fr.

That's called majoritarianism, and it's exactly what the Bill of Rights was meant to prevent:

> The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

US Supreme Court, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

It's literally "a mural that local high school students created last summer."

A bakery owner filed a federal lawsuit against the town of Conway, New Hampshire, on Tuesday after officials demanded he paint over a mural that local high school students created last summer. Leavitt’s Country Bakery owner Sean Young teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file the lawsuit, which argues that Conway’s sign code violates his and other town residents’ First Amendment rights.

Leavitt’s is so loved that a group of Kennett High School students offered to paint a mural for the business. The students decided that the mural should depict a colorful mountainscape of baked goods with the sun rising behind them, in honor of the nearby White Mountains. The mural, which was unveiled in June 2022, became an instant hit with Leavitt’s customers.

The assistant building inspector informed Sean that he could apply for a variance to keep the mural up. When Sean did so in September 2022, he had the backing of Conway residents: More than 1,000 people commented on Leavitt’s Facebook page in support of the mural and scores of letters to the editor have been published in the Conway Daily Sun arguing that the mural should stay. Yet the Conway Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) voted unanimously against granting the bakery a variance. Then, in November, the ZBA doubled down, again denying the variance.

“I couldn’t believe the town was going after me for giving high school students a way to express their artistic passions and contribute something fun and delightful to the community,” Sean said. “This mural isn’t hurting anyone. If anything, it has brought the community together.”

Trying to right this wrong and avoid litigation, IJ sent a letter to Conway officials in December 2022 urging town officials to back off Leavitt’s. As IJ’s letter explained, the town’s sign code was both confusing and unconstitutional. Although IJ offered to help the town craft a new sign code, it refused the offer, instead sending Sean yet another letter ordering him to either get a sign permit or take down the mural forever.

“Leavitt’s mural is beautiful and showcases what can be accomplished when a community comes together,” IJ Litigation Fellow Betsy Sanz said. “Conway’s crackdown on this artwork serves no legitimate government interest.”

IJ’s fight against similar violations of the First Amendment rights of small business owners throughout the country includes a 2020 victory that allowed a North Dakota saloon to keep up its mural, a 2017 win for a Florida video game store that wanted to display an inflatable Mario in front of its store, and a 2013 ruling which permitted a California gym to advertise on a sandwich board out front.

no one agrees with whatever this idiot hall monitor bureaucrat is trying to enforce. But letting it bother you THIS much doesn't prove you're a libertarian, it proves you're fragile and easily rattled.

Dildo murals for all!

Conway Zoning Board of Adjustment:

Term Expires

2023 John Colbath, Chair
2024 Andrew Chalmers, Vice Chair
2023 Luigi Bartolomeo
2025 Richard Pierce
2025 Jonathan Hebert

2023 Jac Cuddy, Alternate
2025 Steven Steiner, Alternate

Lol

I don't see how that changes anything from a legal standpoint. And I will reiterate the sign is fine and they should adjust the bylaws.

Then you obviously have no understanding of the relevant legal principles.

> Leavitt’s Country Bakery owner Sean Young teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file the lawsuit, which argues that Conway’s sign code violates his and other town residents’ First Amendment rights.

There is an important difference between these two. Leavitt's speech (e.g., the store's logo) falls within the First Amendment category known as 'commercial speech':

> The “different degree of protection” accorded commercial speech has a number of consequences as regards other First Amendment doctrine. For instance, somewhat broader times, places, and manner regulations are to be tolerated, and the rule against prior restraints may be inapplicable. Further, disseminators of commercial speech are not protected by the overbreadth doctrine.

However, in this case Leavitt simply provided a space (in First Amendment terms, a 'forum') within which the local high school students could create their own speech.

Murals are within the First Amendment category known as 'artistic expression'. And since the high school students did not charge any fee for the art they produced, this artistic expression was by definition not created for commercial purposes, but was instead created as “pure speech” which as a matter of First Amendment law is fully entitled to comprehensive protection.

Let's see what the courts say over us two idiots then eh?

No need to label them with the names of the officials. Everybody there will know who the particular assholes belong to, and there's no chance of counter harassment, libel, or whatever suits(?)

Implication can be more powerful than being explicit(?)

> The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

US Supreme Court, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

that doesn't mesh with the article: > Less than two weeks after the mural was painted, the inspector visited the bakery and informed Sean that because the mural depicts donuts and scones, and Leavitt’s is a bakery, the mural is considered a “sign” subject to the town’s strict regulations.

further:

>The assistant building inspector informed Sean that he could apply for a variance to keep the mural up. When Sean did so in September 2022 ... the Conway Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) voted unanimously against granting the bakery a variance. Then, in November, the ZBA doubled down, again denying the variance.

Seems to me the inspector was doing his job and the zoning board as a whole is against it.

Say what you want, agree or disagree as much as you want, but there are sign laws everywhere.

> IJ’s fight against similar violations of the First Amendment rights of small business owners throughout the country includes a 2020 victory that allowed a North Dakota saloon to keep up its mural, a 2017 win for a Florida video game store that wanted to display an inflatable Mario in front of its store, and a 2013 ruling which permitted a California gym to advertise on a sandwich board out front.

Conway planning and zoning dept is a meme. Just give the guy an after-the-fact sign permit and move past it.

If you are experiencing freedom in excess of 4 hours, see a doctor.

F these government tyrants

It’s less an exception to the rule as much as it’s a decision of what constitutes a sign.

It mentions in the article that the town allows murals but takes exception to the fact that the mural depicts baked goods. One can gather from the basis of the suit that there is nothing in the letter of the law about mural content so they should not be able to say that that is not a mural based on subject matter.

As far as small town politics is concerned, one board member absolutely can control the whole board. Think of a typical friend group and how often everyone falls in step behind the strongest most popular personality. Small town politics is typically the same way. There’s always certain individuals one doesn’t want to cross or they get iced out.

Small town politics is also strongly influenced by personal feelings. Everyone knows everyone and everything about each other. It’s always possible that there’s some bad blood involved. Long standing personal dislikes or slighted feelings making someone want to make life difficult for the owner. Total speculation but often when one an established business sells there were more interested parties than just the one who gets the place. That can lead to anger at the person who “won” and petty actions against them.

So the solution here is they should have granted him the variance and then taken up IJ’s offer to button up the current law so it doesn’t become a free for all with signs littering the Whites which I think we can all agree is the original intent of the law and one we could all support.

They were fine with granting a variance for a market basket advertisement sign though...

Did both of them do it because they read a comment on the internet?

Are you leaving comments because you believe no one reads them or reacts to them in any way?

If you really believe people are gonna read comments and do exactly what they say you should suck my dick.