Will one of our distinguised esquires comment on the probable outcome of such a court case or perhaps comment on what the path to get this portion of the bill overturned would be? I hear plenty of news coverage on how some part of a law was overturned by some court or other and I wonder how long (and how much it cost) it took to get to that stage.
-jsc -----Original Message----- From: William H. Magill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 1:36 PM To: John Ellingsworth Cc: UC Subject: SPAM SPAM -- Re: [UC] Community improvement, one bill at a time On 01 Dec, 2004, at 11:32, John Ellingsworth wrote: > To my fellow neighbors more than 500 feet away from me - I am going to > put > up a big billboard on my house, advertising my new slots parlor. ONLY "persons," which I believe means natural persons, but am not positive, "living" within 500 feet of the offending billboard have any standing to complain. It is not clear if "renters" have any say, or only the property owners. I assume the latter. As I read the change, it puts an end to the ability of ANY Community Zoning Committee or similar group to have any kind of "standing" by which to oppose the activities of say, the University to do whatever they want with 40th Street. This change applies not only to Billboards (who crafted the amendment), but to Stop-and-Gos, rendering plants (which one could build virtually anywhere along Chestnut or Walnut Streets - which are zoned commercial), corner tappies and other similar "popular" establishments. This one will obviously wind up in the courts. T.T.F.N. William H. Magill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
