Mediaboss Marketing

Beth Treffeisen|Cape Cod Times

SANDWICH In the early afternoon, before Sandwich Special Town meeting was set to begin at the high school, members of the environmental group Sustainable Practices were asked by a police officer to move their signs and displays so they were 150 feet from the school entrance.

The request to movewas made by Selectman Robert George, becausehe thought it was the law.

However, the 150-foot law only applies to polling places, not town meetings, according to the Secretary of State's website and the Sandwich TownClerk.

After learning that members of Sustainable Practices were wrongly moved before last month's meeting, members Mary Cote and Jacob Swenson demandedGeorgeapologize for his action, saying his failure to abideby the law isgroundsforhim to resign or be removed from his elected position.

What he did to me was a blatant abuse of power, Mary Cote wrote in a letter to the Selectmen. He took away my right.

Cote and other members of the group filed a complaint about the incident with the Attorney Generals office.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE TIMES

Town Clerk Taylor White was made aware of the situation after the special town meeting ended.He said he thinks Georgemisunderstood the law.

Typically before a town meeting, there is a gauntlet of people made up of political candidates and groups vying for the voters' attention standing near the entrance of the meeting venue.

In this case, about150 people attended the Nov. 14 special town meeting and members from the Sustainable Practices were the only group outside, other than a bake sale that was going on, Taylor said.

There is a gentlemens agreementunder whichpeople have been asked to make enough space for people to enter the meeting without being delayed, White said.

At the Board of Selectmen meeting Thursday, George saidhe might have had the wrong information and will check on the law.

You see it time and time again that people just jam the front of the school at town meeting, George said during the meeting. I will find out if I was misled and if I was I will publicly apologize to them.

As of Friday, Cote still had not received an apology from George.

Board of Selectmen members said they will ask town counsel for further clarification.

Selectmen David Sampson said he didnt think the folks who stand outside town meeting are changing the minds of the voters.

I think they are taking the opportunity to get their message out, Sampson said.Ive never seen anyone outside obstructing the access, which is really the most important thing.

Voters at the special town meeting indefinitely postponed the petition article put forth by Sustainable Practices to ban commercial plastic water bottles. The group plans to bring the petition back for a vote at the spring town meeting. Similar articles have passed in eight other Cape towns.

The fact that it was deferred and not voted down, shows that people know it is the right thing to do but for whatever reason they were not ready yet, Cote said Friday.

A seasoned environmental activist, Cote said she was unsure if the pressure to move her group's display further from the entrance prevented them from getting their message across to voters.

Moving the group may have delegitimized Sustainable Practices cause and made it more difficult for them to talk to voters, Swenson wrote in an email to the Select Board.

Bobby George was wrong to all of this, Swenson wrote. He violated the first amendment rights of these citizens and blatantly abused his power.

Contact Beth Treffeisen at btreffeisen@capecodonline.com. Follow her on Twitter @BTreffeisenCCT

See the original post:
Environmental group wrongly asked to move 150 feet away from town meeting entrance - Cape Cod Times

In the midst of COVID-19, our national turmoil and the positive Black Lives Matter movement, Palo Alto has become embroiled in the issue of access to our beloved Foothills Park. As two City Council members who have been immersed in the details, we wanted to share what we've learned on the issue so that people are informed about what is actually at stake when asked to sign the petition that is now circulating for a referendum.

Some view Foothills Park through a racial lens, and indeed some of Palo Alto's history is similar to that of cities around us and across the country with the unconscionable race-based discrimination of those times. But in other important ways Palo Alto has been racially progressive over the decades, including being one of the very few Bay Area cities to oppose the rent discrimination of CA 1964 Prop 14; forming Midpen Citizens for Fair Housing, the first fair housing agency in the country; and honoring Joseph Eichler, who required explicit inclusionary agreements at a time when few others did.

Yet while the historical perspective is important, the legal arguments raised with Foothills Park in a lawsuit brought by ACLU and NAACP are based not on racial equity, but instead on the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

The decision of the ACLU and NAACP to emphasize a racial storyline, which obscures the actual substance of their suit, has triggered two unfortunate reactions:

First, while it rallied their supporters, the campaign also rallied many other people who simply don't see Foothills Park as a segregationist issue and who feel insulted at being told they are racist. As we've seen across our nation, this kind of it-rallies-both-sides polarization hurts our capacity for principled and thoughtful discourse, even among reasonable people.

Second, the Palo Alto community among the most educated in the nation is astute enough to doubt that a race-based legal case for Foothills Park admission would stick. Because the plaintiffs aggressively marketed their case on this basis, and not on the more substantial First Amendment constitutional aspect, many Palo Altans wrongly view the lawsuit as frivolous.

Both these things have helped spur the petition.

Let us therefore try to clarify the substance of the lawsuit.

The legal claim is that Foothills Park is subject to our federal First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly, overriding any Palo Alto ordinance. The argument is that even though the city owns the land, public parks, like public sidewalks, are special common areas; and unlike private citizens' property or even many other public facilities, we can't ban nonresidents from gathering there.

Although we have the right to manage the park, limit the number of visitors, charge fees and so forth, the suit asserts we can not discriminate on the basis of residence in allowing access. So while each case is unique, this issue would be the deciding factor; not race or other social-justice concerns.

The council discusses the details of lawsuits in closed session with legal counsel, including outside specialist counsel, in order to protect our ability to litigate without disclosing strategy to the opposing side. This is an important protection for residents, but is understandably frustrating to all involved.

We both initially voted for the pilot program and for placing the long-term question on the 2022 ballot for voters to decide. After we understood the First Amendment nature of the lawsuit, we both changed our view and voted for the settlement.

If the petition organizers collect the 2,581 signatures needed, the settlement will be voided and the lawsuit proceeds. If the city wins the litigation, then we can do what we want.

If the city loses the litigation, then Palo Alto's "residents-only" policy, including the pilot project, is struck down. A referendum becomes meaningless; the park will be opened on terms determined in a federal court. The current settlement, which waives us paying the ACLU's legal fees and allows a few things like residents' priority access to facilities like campgrounds, would not apply.

In this outcome, the city may also be required to pay high plaintiffs' attorneys' costs. The ACLU and its private firm partner are currently working pro bono, but if they win the lawsuit, they will seek to recover their full legal expenses from Palo Alto. Those expenses would divert funds from already pandemic-challenged programs like the Children's Theater, Youth Community Services, public safety, and ironically, parks.

Those considering signing the petition should consider two important factors:

First, the petition does NOT actually give residents control over Foothills Park access via a referendum; instead it revives the First Amendment lawsuit, which the city must first win before any referendum means anything. The petition is a high-stakes bet on that lawsuit, whose odds depend not on social justice or transparency, but on details of Constitutional First Amendment law.

Second, the decision to place this bet will be made not by majority vote but by the 4% of residents (2,500 out of 67,000) who sign the petition. Those 4% will irreversibly commit the other 96% of Palo Altans to this course. This places a significant responsibility on the 4%, and signers should understand the financial risk here.

The city has posted a sizable FAQ on its web site with answers to a number of questions, and the full terms of the settlement agreement are here.

Finally, let us end with a plea on a different but urgent matter. The COVID-19 situation is at a critical juncture. While we've all grown weary of it, we must renew our efforts to isolate in order to slow the transmission rate. Our health care system is at risk of being overwhelmed. Please do all you can to support the county and state directives now in effect.

Go here to see the original:
Opinion: What you need to know about the Foothills Park referendum - Palo Alto Online

Murdock, a town of fewer than 300 people, passed a conditional permit Wednesday to allow use of a church building bought by the Asatru Folk Assembly.

The Asatru Folk Assembly describes Asatru as "the religion by which the Ethnic European Folk have traditionally related to the Divine and to the world around them." The website says that it is part of the "great Aryan religiosity."

City leaders said the passage of the permit was due to First Amendment rights.

"We as the leaders of the City of Murdock want it to be known that the City of Murdock condemns racism in all of its forms: Conscious, Unconscious, any place, any time, now and in the future," Mayor Craig Kavanagh said during Wednesday's meeting. "We are committed to building a community that promotes equal justice and opportunity to every single person regardless of their race."

"The Conditional Use Permit for the AFA is very controversial if you want to make it about religious beliefs, but what is failing to get mentioned is this vote was not about beliefs," Kavanagh said in a statement sent to CNN.

"This vote was about a zoning permit to let an old abandoned church be used for exactly what it was built for "a church." Now I understand the beliefs of who will be using the church are much different from one another, but that is every person's 1st amendment right according to the Constitution."

"To the City Council of Murdock, thank you. We know there was a lot of pressure on you to deny us our permit and right to worship," the post said. "We appreciate your fairness and this opportunity."

Kavanagh's statement said the topic was a main topic of discussion at council meetings as well as in the community over the past few months. A public meeting was held in October and while the vote was originally scheduled in November, it was postponed so the mayor could bring in the city attorney and explain the legal ramifications, it said.

"I can assure you that nobody thought we would have to deal with a topic like this in our little town, but nothing is predictable in the year 2020, it seems," he said.

The AFA includes in its statement of ethics the following:

"We in Asatru support strong, healthy white family relationships. We want our children to grow up to be mothers and fathers to white children of their own. We believe that those activities and behaviors supportive of the white family should be encouraged while those activities and behaviors destructive of the white family are to be discouraged."

Kavanagh's statement went on to say that the city was advised to pass the permit, saying the circumstances could be a "substantial burden."

"This town is still the same town it was before this CUP approval took place," Kavanagh said. "The vote last night had nothing to do with beliefs or race, it was strictly a zoning issue the council felt like it needed to legally abide by or it would have caused a substantial burden to the town. We as a council still want what is best for the City of Murdock and will always do so."

See the article here:
City approves conditional permit to allow use of church building by a Whites-only group - CNN

The Supreme Court of the United States released a decision blocking Gov. Cuomo from imposing strict attendance limits on New York City churches and synagogues to contain the spread of the coronavirus on Nov. 25.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America were the plaintiffs who sued Cuomo because they believed they were being unfairly and severely targeted by the limitations of the Cluster Action Initiative that placed them in red and orange zones. They said the orders violated their First Amendment rights of religious expression.

Gov. Cuomo released this initiative on Oct. 6, which introduced new restrictions and rules aimed towards reducing the COVID-19 infection rate by focusing on areas of NYC where cases had increased. The initiative categorized hotspots into three color zones: red, orange and yellow. In red zones, places of worship were limited to a maximum of 10 people and orange zones were limited to 25.

The court was split on the decision with a 5-4 vote. The three liberal Supreme Court justices Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, cast the dissenting votes, while most of the conservative justices: Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, voted to block the restrictions. However, Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, sided with the liberals.

Justice Barrett casted her first publicly discernable vote as a justice, The Guardian reported. This vote was pivotal, because her vote helped the court depart from past cases that deferred to state authorities on public-health measures, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The plaintiffs argued that their restrictions were harsher because businesses deemed essential by the state, like grocery stores, are not subject to the same level of restrictions. This may imply that churches and synagogues consider themselves to be essential businesses too.

However, New York argued that they are already being lenient with houses of worship. The state specifically said that churches and synagogues are treated more favorably than activities considered comparable, such as lectures, concerts, cinemas and sporting events, which are completely shut down in high-risk zones, the Wall Street Journal said.

Some of the justices released their opinions on the case and the reasoning behind their choices. The decisions reflect that the justices were split. Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area, but the restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendments guarantee of religious liberty, the decision said.

Some of the conservative justices disagreed with Cuomos restrictions because they felt New York has been extreme in their restrictions. New Yorks restrictions on houses of worship are much more severe than the California and Nevada restrictions, Justice Kavanaugh said.

Some of the conservative justices also believed that churches and synagogues have more importance than some of the other businesses that were allowed to stay open. In fact, There is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques, Justice Gorsuch said.

On the other hand, the liberal justices argued that the court should not interfere with public health authorities, the Wall Street Journal discusses. The nature of the epidemic, the spikes, the uncertainties, and the need for quick action, taken together, mean that the State has countervailing arguments based upon health, safety, and administrative considerations, Justice Breyer wrote.

Gov. Cuomo responded to the Supreme Court opinions and ruling by calling them irrelevant. Since the plaintiffs are no longer in areas of high risk, the zone that they were talking about has already been moot, Gov. Cuomo claimed.

Additionally, Cuomo saw this case as an opportunity for the now conservative-leaning Supreme Court to express its philosophy and politics, he said in a press conference on Nov. 26.

Cuomo also said the ruling had no effect on the states virus control efforts.

Since being in the yellow zone, the plaintiffs have not challenged the restrictions. This is an historic victory, Avi Schick, an attorney for Agudath Israel of America, said per The Guardian.

View original post here:
Supreme Court declares NYC houses of worship exempt from attendance limits The Ticker - The Ticker

Thanks to Kate for sending: Police have blocked off all traffic, including pedestrians, on H street from 17th to Vermont. Im thinking its to protect all of the artwork on the fence surrounding Lafayette Square. Could definitely be for something else though.

From MPD:

TRAFFIC ADVISORY: First Amendment Activity

From Friday, December 11, 2020 through Sunday, December 13, 2020, multiple First Amendment demonstrations are scheduled to occur in the District of Columbia. In conjunction with these demonstrations, there will be parking restriction and potential street closures that motorists should take into consideration:

The following streets will be posted as Emergency No Parking on Thursday, December 11, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, December 13, 2020 11:59 p.m:

H Street from 15th Street to 17th StreetI Street from 15th Street to 17th StreetConnecticut Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NWVermont Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NW15th Street from I Street to K Street, NW (west side of McPherson Square)17th Street from I Street to K Street, NW (east side of Franklin Square)

The following streets will be posted as Emergency No Parking for Saturday, December 12, 2020 at 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m:

Constitution Avenue from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to 23rd Street, NWPennsylvania Avenue from 3rd Street, NW to 18th Street, NWI Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWI Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWH Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWH Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWK Street from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWNew York Avenue from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NW17th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW

(west side of Farragut Square)

15th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW

(east side of McPherson Square)

16th Street from K Street to O Street14th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to L Street, NW13th Street from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to L Street, NW12th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW11th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW10th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW9th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW7th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to E Street, NW6th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW4th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW3rd Street from Independence Avenue, SW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NWNew York Avenue from 18th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWC Street from 18th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWD Street from 18th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWMadison Drive from 3rd Street, NW to 15th Street, NWJefferson Drive from 3rd Street, SW to 15th Street, SW

Street Closures

On Saturday, December 12, 2020, the following streets will be restricted to vehicular traffic from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. The decision to restrict vehicles will be based upon public safety and if safe to do so, vehicles will be allowed to enter the restricted area if they are on essential business or traveling to-and-from their residence.

Constitution Avenue from Pennsylvania Avenue to 23rd Street, NWIndependence Avenue, SW from 14th Street to Ohio Drive, SWK Street from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWI Street from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWH Street from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWNew York Avenue from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWNew York Avenue from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWG Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWG Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWF Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWF Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWE Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWE Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWD Street from 5th Street, NW to 9th Street, NWD Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWC Street from 3rd Street, NW to 6th Street, NWC Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWPennsylvania Avenue, NW from 3rd Street, NW to 15th Street, NWPennsylvania Avenue, NW from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWIndiana Avenue from 3rd Street to 5th Street, NW3rd Street from Independence Avenue, SW to D Street, NW4th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW4th Street from Indiana Avenue, NW to E Street, NW5th Street from Indiana Avenue, NW to E Street, NW6th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW7th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to E Street, NW9th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW10th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW11th Street from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to L Street, NW12th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW13th Street from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to L Street, NW14th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to L Street, NW15th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to L Street, NW16th Street from H Street, NW to L Street, NWVermont Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NWConnecticut Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NW17th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to L Street, NWMadison Street from 3rd Street, NW to 15th Street, NWJefferson Street from 3rd Street, SW to 15th Street, SW12th Street Tunnel9th Street Tunnel

While the Metropolitan Police Department does not anticipate street closures on Friday, December 11, 2020 or Sunday, December 13, 2020, there is the potential for intermittent closures in the downtown area. Any decision to close a street will be based upon public safety. For timely traffic information, please visit twitter.com/DCPoliceTraffic,

The public should expect parking restrictions along the street and should be guided by the posted emergency no parking signage. All vehicles that are parked in violation of the emergency no parking signs will be ticketed and towed.

Motorists could encounter possible delays if operating in the vicinity of downtown area and may wish to consider alternative routes. The Metropolitan Police Department and the D.C. Department of Transportation also wishes to remind motorists in the vicinity of this event to proceed with caution as increased pedestrian traffic can be anticipated.

See the original post here:
"Police have blocked off all traffic, including pedestrians, on H street from 17th to Vermont." - PoPville