Committee reverses its recommendation on sign ban

An ordinance that would ban political advertising on city property and public rights of way was returned to the Planning, Licenses and Development committee for further review. Current state law prohibits the placing of political advertising on public property but this has never stopped candidates from doing just that every election season. Because of this, a new city ordinance was introduced earlier this month in an attempt to clarify the law by indicating the exact locations within Keene that would be off limits. It was recommended (3 to 1) and sent to full council for a final vote.

However, a recent Supreme court ruling, Reed vs Gilbert, has brought into question the constitutionality of such a restriction. It was decided to return the bill back to committee for further scrutiny. City officials as well as members of the public weighed in and it was ultimately decided to reverse the previous decision. This time the committee voted unanimously to “not adopt” the ordinance.  Full city council will vote on the proposal at its Nov 3rd meeting.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


16 Comments

  1. How about that, and you did absolutely nothing to change the committee’s votes. It looks like the system works.

  2. Jumping Jacks You certainly didn’t feel that way when Maggie Hassan ended the prohibition of Narcan, now did you Jacks? In fact, you went on and on about how much you disagreed with it. Did the system work then in your opinion?

  3. Drac Vermell Jumping Jacks Peaches, again your freekeene trolling is showing the sad state of your intellectual development. I wasn’t against the use of Narcan, I was concerned about the education of the use of Narcan.  How very sad for you.

  4. Jumping Jacks Drac Vermell No Jacks. You made the reasons for your opposition to that law quite clear. You were concerned that the increased availability of Narcan would encourage opiate users to use it to make their drug habits safer. Isn’t that kind of a ridiculous position for a drug rehabilitation counselor to take? If “Get Clean or Die” is the motto of your treatment plan, Jacks, I have to wonder how many customers you have, much less any repeat business.

  5. Drac Vermell Jumping Jacks Peaches, it would appear you are way off topic again. Are you not getting enough attention at home? Do you know how to comprehend the topic at hand? You seem to continue with the same off the topic comments. I already schooled you on Maggie Hassan and the use of “Narcan”. Your uneducated remarks don’t mean anything except rants and raves. It sounds like you are really bothered by the success of my ideas and achievements.

  6. Jumping Jacks Drac Vermell Your lack of working knowledge on subjects you claim expertise in totally refutes your past claims of success and achievement, doesn’t it Jacks? As I predicted, though, you did double down on your lie. You even decorated it with a barrage of Jacksisms and false outrage. Quite a show, Jacks. You’re very entertaining, even if you don’t know it.

  7. Drac Vermell Jumping Jacks Peaches, again you continue with this charade of personalities while trolling freekeene. You take information you think you know and apply it to information you don’t know. This makes you the deceiver. “Even if you don’t know it”.

  8. Jumping Jacks Drac Vermell “Charade of personalities,” Jacks? is that like “lip dibbling?” Sometimes your messages are so thick with Jacksisms, it’s impossible to understand you. But I think I know where you’re going with this. I’ve posted a delightful little picture that brilliantly illustrates your argument.

  9. That moniker seems to be true as of late.
    What and who are you because you claim that you have made clear in the past years of who you are, and what you stand for? I think coming from someone who is looking at this from a afar, people know what, and who you are standing for but don’t know who you really are. Others like libertea and weeda claus seem to know you, or have contact with you, but the people who speak out against your friends here, you seem to be tight lipped against them about your identity. I hope you see where I am coming from. You seem to be an intellectual human being, but also seem to be hiding something, it almost as if your cranial synapses are not “synapsing”.

  10. Milwaukee  My goodness Milwaukee, it looks like that second sentence of yours really got away from you didn’t it? Now, since you’re insisting upon continuing this investigation of yours, why don’t you start by exchanging your notes with River Street’s greatest detective? I’m sure that he’d be happy to tell you everything you want to know.

  11. Well I guess it is what it is.

  12. Milwaukee That’s quite a peevish statement to be making considering your rudeness here. You know Milwaukee, I find it quite hard to believe that you’re really shocked that someone would prefer to maintain even a small semblance of privacy – particularly on the internet of all places. And it’s not like I’m alone in this distinction ether. Jacks for instance has gone to great lengths to guard his identity, even going so far as to adopt unique aliases for himself in each blog he participates in. I would think that you’d be far more interested in Jacks for this reason, Milwaukee, especially considering the fact that you’ve been watching this with such interest from afar.

  13. I’m sorry, I hope I wasn’t being rude just making an observation.

  14. Milwaukee No worries, Milwaukee. I’m merely testing your mettle.

  15. Oh I have a backbone, just looking at things from all angles.

  16. Milwaukee Prove it. Ask Jacks who he is. He won’t tell you, but it would be really, really funny.

Care to comment?