Kevin Six

Comments by kevinsix

First Ammendment Issues in the Village Woods

Bulletin Board = Public Forum From a First Amendment law firm: Although the California Supreme Court found that California's free speech right applies to speech in a privately owned shopping mall because the mall is the modern-day equivalent of the traditional town square, Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal. 3d 899 (1979), subsequent cases have narrowed Robins' reach. In 2001, the California Supreme Court said that a tenants' association did not have the right to distribute unsolicited flyers throughout a privately owned apartment complex. Golden Gateway Ctr. v. Golden Gateway Tenants Ass'n, 26 Cal. 4th 1013, 1035 (2001). But even in that case, the court "emphasize[d] that [its] decision ... does not give apartment owners carte blanche to stifle tenant speech. Tenants may still have remedies under conventional property law principles. (See Lobsenz & Swanson, The Residential Tenant's Right to Freedom of Political Expression (1986) 10 U. Puget Sound L.Rev. 1, 45.) Moreover, many statutes and ordinances serve to protect tenants against unreasonable lease provisions and restrictions. (See, e.g., Civ. Code, § 1942.5, 1942.6, 1953.)." Id. at 1035. In addition, even under a free speech analysis, there might be an argument to be made that a tenant bulletin board is a kind of limited public forum -- especially to the extent the bulletin board is located in a freely accessible location -- and that the Board may not restrict postings based on the viewpoint of the poster.
— January 27, 2011 10:09 a.m.

I Live in Linda Vista

Reader Letters 1-27-11 Cheapskate Caught I am very disappointed that the Reader saw fit to reward a member of Village Woods for admitting that he doesn’t pay dues and that he wants to be noisy (“I Live in Linda Vista,” Feature Story, January 20). We are a small, low-income condo. We live very closely in small units and need to enforce quiet. As well, we are struggling to pay our bills, with many members who do not pay dues and are foreclosing. It’s good that you flushed out one source of his income, which we will go after, but it’s questionable whether you should be rewarding people for admitting they break rules and cause havoc in our community. As well, I would like to make a correction to Walter Mencken’s column in which he intimated that Sunrise Powerlink is a green energy project (“SD on the QT,” January 20). It is a greenwash project that will increase fossil fuels and global warming by shipping liquefied natural gas from Indonesia across the ocean in fossil-fuel-emitting vessels, which are unregulated, bypassing our ports and jobs to a Mexican port, and bypassing our clean air laws to produce the power in Mexico. As well, it will greatly increase our fire danger. Many, many people came down to the board of supervisors meeting against the Sunrise Powerlink and filled the room to overflowing when it was heard. What we want as an alternative is a solar roof project by SDG&E to outfit all of our homes with solar roofs. We are willing to pay monthly for that but not for increased fire danger and increased global warming, which will eventually destroy our food and water supply. Name Withheld by Request via email Kevin Six replys: Satire. Look it up: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire Also, I am paid up on my dues, I like quiet before 7:00 a.m. and after 11:00 p.m. and I want solar too. But thanks for threatening me. Too bad you don't under stand the above word. Don't want to break rules or make noise. Just want to have fun, within the rules. I also want to read everything before I make comment. Oh, and Walter Menken is a satirist. Look it up: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satirist
— January 27, 2011 10 a.m.