Check with City plan @ 946-2964.

If not permitted.....

Make your complaint to the Zoning Staff at 203.946.8040.

Original Commenter authorized removal of this comment.

A few neighbors sent me emails about this sign.
Alderman Lemar tells me that this is protected under free speech. I'm going to close the issue if that's ok.

Ben,

while you are at it, it'd be great if you could delete the comment alleging illegal behavior on my part.

Anon,
I was appointed to the zoning board because I actually understand how the laws work in this city. Honestly this is the first time I've ever heard of "enterprise". If you feel the need to insinuate illegal behavior on my part, at least have the courtesy to use your real name.

Streever:
I never insinuated or alleged anything, got a guilty conscience?
I just stated FACTs.
1)Were you or were you not, appointed to the zoning board by King John?
2)Enterprise DID do (and still is doing) lots of work for the city.
2 Facts, that's all.
You never jumped in to defend the free speech of the sign that is hanging on the side of the fish market at the corner of State & Humphrey. I find it odd that you are so quick to take King Johnny's side, even before you check your "copy of the zoning ordinance".
Defend King John first, check ordinance second...? Is that proof of your knowledge of "how the laws work in this city". I am not impressed.

Anon: Paranoid much?

The issue here is...is the sign legal or not? I suspect it may not be because of its ridiculously large size (it is' billboardesque')
Put its content aside... no matter what it says do we really want to look at billboard advertising in our neighborhood? I'm sure if it is not legal they will ask to remove it. LCI watcher. I called your office to question about its legality... Frank D'Amare said he would look into it. Are you saying that is not his jurisdiction??????

You can view the city ordinance at http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=19969&sid=7.

Signs:
"But this definition shall not include the flag, emblem, insignia, poster or other display of any nation or political subdivision including traffic or similar regulatory devices; or legal notices, warnings at railroad crossings, signs or tablets which are primarily memorials, or emblems of religious institutions that are attached to buildings."

The regulations for this zone concerning signage make it highly unlikely that this sign is against zoning, as the Definitions specifically excludes all political signage.

(and for the record, I'm the only individual actually being on-topic, so I appreciate the request that we all address the original issue.)

Just called Zoning. That building is in a business zone which has a larger signage allowance then residential zones. Zoning does not regulate content of signage only sizing. Signage allowance is calculated on the square footage of the facade. Because Enterprise Plumbing really has no other signs it is safe to say that they are within their signage limits. While personally I would love to see the sign go if its legal, its legal.

Anon:
I didn't see that because it's not in my alerts. I get 300 seeclickfix e-mails a day.

You did most certainly insinuate a link between me & this. It's an ignorant & uninformed statement, because I vocally & openly criticize the mayor.

However, I spent all of 30 seconds looking this up in the zoning ordinance, and saw that you were wrong: it is perfectly legal.

I'm not trying to defend the mayor. (Yet another baseless accusation you seem interested in making)

If this site is going to go to the dumps, it will be because of paranoid, insane individuals like yourself.

Hi Guys,

Lets try to keep the conversation on track.

Libel is obviously not accepted on this site, but after careful review we do not believe there are accusations of illegal behavior here.

David, thanks for posting the info about zoning. Interesting stuff and appreciate you sharing the information.

Ben,

in what way is this:
"Enterprise got lots and lots of work on the new schools.
Streever was given an appointment to the zoning board."

acceptable or relevant?

I'm disappointed, but I will have to stop using this site, as this is an allegation of illegal behavior on my part.

I take my duties and ethical requirements very seriously. This is something which could impact my ability to do the volunteer work I do, and as such, while I understand SCF's view point, it is not something which I am able to be a part of.

If anonymous individuals are allowed to mis-use & abuse people who are trying to be helpful, then I'd appreciate SCF removing my account--

Just a final word:

The individual who felt the need to post a snarky and inaccurate comment about me is a well-known person who suffers from serious paranoia & delusions. Despite their other good works & charitable giving, they have serious issues.

I view this ultimately as a failure of the platform as well. Every post has a "Flag as inappropriate" link next to it. Presumably, off-topic & irrelevant postings fall under this, as do personal attacks.

However, the founders of SCF have informed me that this is not the case.

I applaud open forums & open discussions. That is why I love the New Haven Independent, which moderates & deletes malicious personal attacks.

Unfortunately, SCF has decided not to operate in this way.

Due to that decision, this is not an open forum, nor is it a forum I can personally be involved in.

I apologize to any one bored with this, but the reality is that it is not worth my personal time to monitor a site for unfounded anonymous attacks on my character & person. I would have to filter hundreds of emails a day to keep up with the activity.

No one person has that type of time, and as such, I will no longer be using SCF. Thank you.

David: I understand why you're upset, but I also think you're overreacting.

Ben's earlier response suggested that if this were a clear case of libel, the post would have been removed. But this is not libel. He's not accusing you of anything, just insinuating it. Legally, there's a difference -- otherwise, Glenn Beck would be in a world of trouble. Basically, it's protected speech.

I'm sure this is not news to you, but local politics is full of cranks who either have an ax to grind or just have too much time on their hands. Their world is small and full of interconnected conspiracies. They grasp at any mote of information that they feel confirms this world view.

Not to get all preachy, but if you plan to spend any time in politics, you're going to have to get used to this sort of thing.

Eddie:
"but if you plan to spend any time in politics, you're going to have to get used to this sort of thing."

Incorrect.

A. I'm not in politics: I'm an appointed volunteer.

B. I can make decisions about which formats & venues I appear in. I don't have to be on any online forum that allows anonymous individuals to attack me.

The NHI deletes malicious comments & personal attacks, which is why I continue to use it. SCF chooses not to, which is why I choose not to use SCF.

the site seems to suggest that "inappropriate" content--unrelated or irrelevant content--gets removed (hence the option to flag it)

If this isn't the case, I have no need or desire to use it, as it will become simply a place to let cranks air their dirty laundry.

the "crank" in question knows my phone number, email, and could get my address if needed. If he had any respect for himself or his community, he'd stop mud-slinging. Charitable deeds do not a good person make. Creating the type of world you want to live in is what I hope any good person aspires to, and that's why I'm not going to continue to use SCF.

any further emails/comments can come to my personal e-mail, as I am disabling e-mail notification on this now--

best,
dls@davidstreever.com