Citizens Can Take Action Against the News-Press for Violating the Law
A Community Post from Mic DeNiro:
=========================
Numerous bloggers have indicated they continue to receive the News-Press despite having cancelled their subscriptions.
Continued delivery of the paper in that circumstance may violate the law, at least within the city of Santa Barbara. I provide the following analysis in case anyone out there in the blogosphere wants to take action. I myself cannot, alas, as I continue to subscribe to the paper, and it always lands on my property.
The following sections of the City of Santa Barbara Municipal Code would appear to be being violated when a News-Press employee throws a copy of the paper, which is refuse (defined at section 7.16.010 as "All types of solid wastes … ") and also qualifies as flammable material, onto the private property of someone who has not consented to such a trespass by subscribing to the paper.
7.16.150 Depositing Refuse for Non-Collection Purposes.
7.16.160 Adding to, Etc., Regular Refuse Accumulations.
8.08.060 Dumping Flammable Materials in Vacant Lots, Streets, Ditches.
According to 7.16.040 and 8.08.010, the Sanitation Code Enforcement Officer is responsible for enforcing violations of sections 7.16.150 and 7.16.160, while the Fire Department Chief is responsible for enforcing violations of 8.08.060.
In those cases where the paper delivery person's aim is not true, and a paper lands in the street or on the sidewalk, whether or not delivery is being attempted to a subscriber, both
8.08.060 Dumping Flammable Materials in Vacant Lots, Streets, Ditches.
and
10.40.100 Throwing Articles on Street
would appear to be being violated.
The Fire Department Chief is responsible for enforcing violations of 8.08.060, while the Police Department is responsible for enforcing violations of 10.40.100, as per 8.08.010 and 10.08.080.
=========================
Numerous bloggers have indicated they continue to receive the News-Press despite having cancelled their subscriptions.
Continued delivery of the paper in that circumstance may violate the law, at least within the city of Santa Barbara. I provide the following analysis in case anyone out there in the blogosphere wants to take action. I myself cannot, alas, as I continue to subscribe to the paper, and it always lands on my property.
The following sections of the City of Santa Barbara Municipal Code would appear to be being violated when a News-Press employee throws a copy of the paper, which is refuse (defined at section 7.16.010 as "All types of solid wastes … ") and also qualifies as flammable material, onto the private property of someone who has not consented to such a trespass by subscribing to the paper.
7.16.150 Depositing Refuse for Non-Collection Purposes.
7.16.160 Adding to, Etc., Regular Refuse Accumulations.
8.08.060 Dumping Flammable Materials in Vacant Lots, Streets, Ditches.
According to 7.16.040 and 8.08.010, the Sanitation Code Enforcement Officer is responsible for enforcing violations of sections 7.16.150 and 7.16.160, while the Fire Department Chief is responsible for enforcing violations of 8.08.060.
In those cases where the paper delivery person's aim is not true, and a paper lands in the street or on the sidewalk, whether or not delivery is being attempted to a subscriber, both
8.08.060 Dumping Flammable Materials in Vacant Lots, Streets, Ditches.
and
10.40.100 Throwing Articles on Street
would appear to be being violated.
The Fire Department Chief is responsible for enforcing violations of 8.08.060, while the Police Department is responsible for enforcing violations of 10.40.100, as per 8.08.010 and 10.08.080.
Labels: Santa Barbara News-Press
posted by Sara De la Guerra | 4/27/2007 11:33:00 AM
Our Community Guidelines ask that you use the Blogger/Open ID login or the
more private Name/URL option when making comments. Comments using "Anonymous" will not be published. For more info, see choosing an identity.
10 Comments:
While this Newspress-as-solid-waste-and-fire-hazard grounds for a criminal complaint seems a solid legal basis, a civil complaint also can be made that a person will be ridiculed and demeaned with his or her reputation severly sullied and demeaned if the public believes the residents of an address are subscribers to this trash.
Subscribing to the Newsmess is a badge of shame, and people who are perceived as subscribers but actually are not are people who are subject to false defamation of character and thus have a claim against the Newspress for defaming their reputation through these badges of shame delivered to a home for all the world to see.
Litigate that.
But what is your sorry excuse for being a subscriber, Mic DeNiro?
You express an alas, but why?
Poor Wendy. Let's not forget, when necessary she's the victim. She will have no choice except to expose the carriers cabal and instate flogging at the plaza.
Have to give the Independent credit for its Wendy "No Shame" cover.
LA Observed had this comment:
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2007/04/grim_saga_for_santa_barba_1.php
Dear Sara DLG:
Have you read about this great protest idea proposed by Craig Smith? How about posting this as a call to action for those who wish to express their displeasure with the Wendy?
[from Craig Smith's blog]
this week's Independent has one of the most talked about covers in a long time. I was thinking what better way for the community to show its displeasure with McCaw's actions than displaying the cover in their place of work or business. Instead of discarding this week's Indy when you're done with it, display the cover in the window of your retail business or prop it up on the reception desk where the public can see it when they walk in the door. After all, how can someone threaten to enjoin you for displaying a weekly newspaper? Let's see Barry Cappello try to cease and desist that!
And from Fishbowl L.A.:
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/newspapers/wendy_mccawful_continues_to_fascinate_em_in_santa_barbara_57916.asp?c=rss
Protest the Wicked Wendy.
Display the Indy's cover in your car window! Protest on the go-go!
How about the other McCaw paper the Voice. That one litters our neighborhood with the papers often being washed into the sewer during rains.
Yes, the Voice is owned by she-Ampersand...but its editors and writers have long been doing their best to report professionally about Goleta Valley and its residents...without dictated direction from above...
Another thought about the excellent Inde cover with blondie's face on it...decorate the NP stands with them...might make people reconsider donating their quarters to the evil ones.
4:24 -- I would really rather not advocate the defacing of property (news stands) with the Indie Covers -- neither The Independent or the intention of Craig Smith's suggestion include that. Let's staty above board here.
Post a Comment
<< Home