http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/...r-AAoccgl?li=BBnb7Kz

Wash Post talks about a KKK sign being put up on the square in Dahlonega.

Now this is the WP, purveyor of piss and B/S.

What was the true story behind this?

Thanks,

RMD

Ok here's what's going on
The owner wants to open another business and the council is dragging their feet
So she put up this sign to force their hand

I'm siding with the land owner here

Gotcha. Rather bad judgement in her sign choice, but that's her right.

Thanks,

RMD

quote:

and what happened next would become one more pocket of America dealing with a disturbing incident at a time when hate crimes have been on the rise and new brands of white nationalism have been making a comeback across the country.

What absolute, utter bull.

Yeah, that article isn't sensationalized at all

I don't agree with the sign she put up, or her method here, but geez!

Well

The owner of the property (who has extensive local property holdings) did this as a very poorly judged attempt to force the city council to allow her get a non-compliant building approved. She thought she was being clever for some reason.
This really isn't about the Klan, other than the reaction everybody had. And yes, it was way over the top.
The story behind the denial is long, and not simply a city government run wild, denying a property owner for no reason. This is in a small town historic district that relies on tourism and she wanted to tear down an old building(s) and put up a new hotel that doesn't fit the area. The historic district had these restrictions way before she bought it and everybody else has had to comply.
When she was denied the first time, she came back with a new plan that was much worse and was denied again for obvious reasons.

Then the sign went up and the news trucks arrived. There aren't many towns nowadays that you can mount a KKK sign on the top of the tallest building, and the news trucks won't show up.

Most everything else is a side show put on by various people with agendas.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 220-9er,

I'm getting sick of this activism shit. I don't care which side. People need to STFU and go to work and then play with their kids.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
I'm getting sick of this activism shit. I don't care which side. People need to STFU and go to work and then play with their kids.

+1000

This brings up Reed v. Town of Gilbert. The town had a "ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed "political" or "ideological" messages." When a local church was cited, the case went to the Supreme Court as a freedom of speech issue.
Reed was a minister of a small church. To get people n, the church would put up temporary signs on Saturday and take them down Sunday. The church was cited twice, once for leaving the signs up for too long and again as the signs didn't have a date on a hen.
Basically, one had to read the sign to understand it's content. The Supreme Court ruled that this violated the first amendment.
Right now communities are revising their sign codes to make them content neutral.
It's also the reason Green wrote in her sign application "“Size of sign: 4x6.”
"Material of sign: wood (painted).” "Color of sign: Gold with Black Lettering.” "How sign will be attached to wall: Screwed.” And leaving the content out.

quote:

Originally posted by Icabod:
This brings up Reed v. Town of Gilbert. The town had a "ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed "political" or "ideological" messages." When a local church was cited, the case went to the Supreme Court as a freedom of speech issue.
Reed was a minister of a small church. To get people n, the church would put up temporary signs on Saturday and take them down Sunday. The church was cited twice, once for leaving the signs up for too long and again as the signs didn't have a date on a hen.
Basically, one had to read the sign to understand it's content. The Supreme Court ruled that this violated the first amendment.
Right now communities are revising their sign codes to make them content neutral.
It's also the reason Green wrote in her sign application "“Size of sign: 4x6.”
"Material of sign: wood (painted).” "Color of sign: Gold with Black Lettering.” "How sign will be attached to wall: Screwed.” And leaving the content out.

This was nothing of the sort.
This was an intentional act by the building owner to get exactly the reaction that happened.
She was trying to extort the city to make the rules not apply to her.

And now we have a bunch of people in Dahlonega saying, "I'm scared!"

What babies!

I've dealt with the Dahlonega and lumpkin county councils more than once.
These people do not have the interest of the county or city at heart.
The whole political organization is run by cronyism.

It is a beautiful town. My son and I enjoyed our visit there.

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:
I've dealt with the Dahlonega and lumpkin county councils more than once.
These people do not have the interest of the county or city at heart.
The whole political organization is run by cronyism.

You're right about the local government, but in this case they are right.
Even a blind squirrel........

For anyone that wants to know, here is the official city response. The middle section deals with the issue of the hotel itself.

fficial-statement-city-of-dahlonega-updated-march-12017&catid=146:news-about-dahlonega&Itemid=132" target="_blank">http://dahlonega-ga.gov/index....dahlonega&Itemid=132