Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Photos of D Train Murder Depict Bloody Panic
Mayor: Sex Trafficking Victims, Please Speak Up
GMA: Adam Lambert, No; Chris Brown, Yes
In a stunning reversal, the controversial and unauthorized detour sign on Kent Avenue in Williamsburg is back on top, less than 24 hours after it came down! Is it a testament to the rejuvenating power of Kabbalah Energy Drink, the semi-truck trailer upon which it rests? The Kabbalah connection is a tad awkward, considering that the Hasidic community's behind the detour. But local resident and Kent bike lane opponent Leo Moskowitz explains that one of the co-owners of the parking lot had previously given his blessing to the sign, and it was only removed yesterday without his knowledge. Moskowitz assures us that not only is the sign back for good, but—fasten your seat belts—activists are working on an even bigger sign!
The heightened opposition to the bike lane, which has some residents and business owners chafing because of a loss of parking, seems to be making an impact. Local City Councilman David Yassky and other officials recently withdrew their support and asked the DOT to paint over the lane. And after consulting with the community, yesterday the DOT began replacing "No Stopping" signs on Kent with "No Standing" signs to allow the pick up and drop off of passengers. DOT spokesman Scott Gastel gave us this statement:
The lanes enhance safety in a neighborhood with one of the largest and fastest-growing bicycling populations in the City, and they are a key step in building the Greenway along the Brooklyn waterfront. The project was developed with the support of the community board, and we have worked closely with the community to address their concerns. We will continue to identify locations to increase parking along side streets in the near future.But what about the DIY detour sign? Gastel previously said that, obviously, only the DOT can authorize a detour, while Moskowitz downplays the sign as merely "an advisory sign on private property, the way Burger King or McDonalds can put up a sign." The big question now is whether the city cares enough to step in and take it down, and whether we can get some photos of that showdown.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I dunno - erecting a fake government sign that might imperil the citizenry: sounds like this could be a case of Domestic Terrorism.
No one driving by is going to stop for 10 minutes to read that friggin mess.
I can barely read that sitting at my desk and I'm not even moving.
Exactly, With the visual cacophony created by the sign and that god-awful trailer, on a straight road, with the lack of contrast between the orange and the black, this sign is probably all but invisible to passing cars.
But I bet they could get a few thousand for it if they put it up in Soho!
This bike lane hysteria is totally nuts: There should be no question that Brooklyn and, more generally, New York, benefits from the constructing of bike lanes. The consequences for communities and, more importantly, personal health, are exclusively positive.
Bike lane opponents should never be taken seriously.
LOL
Private signs on private property are legal, and there is nothing that DOT bureaucrats and the Spandex Nazis can do about it.
Score one for the Hasids!
This reminds me of back in the '70's, when thousands of hippies marched up Fifth Avenue with signs that said "Legalize Marijuana" but for some strange reason Albany didn't obey.
Or back in the '80s in the East Village, when the punks all had "Die Yuppie Scum" signs. But the funny thing was, not a single Yuppie died as the result.
I predict a similar outcome for this sign.
Clearly, thefacts doesn't know "thelaw." There are countless laws and regulations stating what kinds of signs you may and may not post on private property.
That's nothing new for "thefacts." In fact, most people here seem to have very quickly forgotten the ads on scaffolding that had to be taken down this past year because they violated size regulations and/or lacked permits. That was despite the fact that they were "on private property."
There are countless laws regulating signage on private property? Really, Rhonda?
Other than ADVERTISING signs on the sides of buildings, please list one or two of the other "countless" types of signage that are regulated by law. Do note that this sign is located in an M zone, where there are scant regulations even on advertising signs, which this sign is not.
Signs on scaffolding are indeed regulated because the scaffolding is placed over the public sidewalks, which, duh, are not private property.
Oh the facts, What a sad little person you are. I will expect another one of your witless, uninformed comments after I finish this. Please note:
Generally, statutory traffic regulations or rules of the road have no application to traffic on private ways or premises. However, this principle has often been qualified to hold that such traffic regulations or rules are applicable to private ways or premises used generally by the public for travel. For example, a man in the District of Columbia was convicted of driving without a license, even though he started his car on private property, and was only seen driving on private property. The court reasoned that unless a motor vehicle law is limited to public property by its own terms, the law applies to all drivers on both public and private property. Several states have followed this general rule including New York, New Jersey, Texas, Iowa and others. Other states have followed this rationale only when examining laws that are more broadly intended to protect against dangerous driving. So, most states permit a police officer to enforce drunk driving laws on any property, public or private, because driving drunk is so inherently dangerous.
Some states, including Massachusetts, Maine and Montana have specific laws that all traffic and motor vehicle laws apply on public property, as well as any private property that is generally open to the public. So, a stop sign posted in a mall parking lot would be enforceable by the police, but a stop sign posted at the end of a private driveway might not be. With regard to Amanda’s apartment complex, a court would likely consider it more like a mall parking lot because any member of the public might drive in the lot to visit a friend or relative. In some states, only traffic signs that are identical to those the state uses are enforceable by police. A small stop sign or a green sign would not work.
SO, with that being said, this is for the simpleton, Yes it is o.k. to have this sign on private property as they are basically giving a suggestion. Notice the language "we urge you" and long acre is right, when I drive by I barely noticed it until now. Score what for the Hassids? What a lamea*s
Oh the facts, What a sad little person you are. I will expect another one of your witless, uninformed comments after I finish this. Please note:
Generally, statutory traffic regulations or rules of the road have no application to traffic on private ways or premises. However, this principle has often been qualified to hold that such traffic regulations or rules are applicable to private ways or premises used generally by the public for travel. For example, a man in the District of Columbia was convicted of driving without a license, even though he started his car on private property, and was only seen driving on private property. The court reasoned that unless a motor vehicle law is limited to public property by its own terms, the law applies to all drivers on both public and private property. Several states have followed this general rule including New York, New Jersey, Texas, Iowa and others. Other states have followed this rationale only when examining laws that are more broadly intended to protect against dangerous driving. So, most states permit a police officer to enforce drunk driving laws on any property, public or private, because driving drunk is so inherently dangerous.
Some states, including Massachusetts, Maine and Montana have specific laws that all traffic and motor vehicle laws apply on public property, as well as any private property that is generally open to the public. So, a stop sign posted in a mall parking lot would be enforceable by the police, but a stop sign posted at the end of a private driveway might not be. With regard to Amanda’s apartment complex, a court would likely consider it more like a mall parking lot because any member of the public might drive in the lot to visit a friend or relative. In some states, only traffic signs that are identical to those the state uses are enforceable by police. A small stop sign or a green sign would not work.
SO, with that being said, this is for the simpleton, Yes it is o.k. to have this sign on private property as they are basically giving a suggestion. Notice the language "we urge you" and long acre is right, when I drive by I barely noticed it until now. Score what for the Hassids? What a lamea*s
Nasty Smacky, after much windbaggery and double-posting on a non-germane issue, accompanied by lots of off-topic pedantry, obfuscation and non-sequiturs on out-of-state DMV laws, while ignoring our own NYC's Zoning Resolution on signage - which is what applies in this case - winds up in the end agreeing with me by concluding: "Yes it is o.k. to have this sign on private property as they are basically giving a suggestion. Notice the language 'we urge you'".
But what else can one expect from someone who spends New Year's Eve at 2:09 am researching Montana's DMV laws to address a NYC Zoning issue in Williamsburg?
Did somebody get their feelings hurt?
That sign looks like some shitty billboard I might see on the side of the highway giving me directions to the nearest wholesale liquor warehouse or fireworks depot.
On top of being bad dressers, the Hasids are bad designers. Oy vey!
next thing you know it will be a lighted sign,
but I doubt it, there are regulations for that.
it does look larger than 4X8 as was stated in the previous post link.
I could care less about the sign.
I can't understand the rationale for encouraging traffic on Wythe (which also has a bike lane, as do berry and bedford in south williamsburg) instead of the wider, 2 lane kent avenue. Kent Avenue is a truck route. There is very little traffic coming from the west (apart from the lumberyard at 475kent, the division & grand st cul-de-sacs and the small amount of traffic on river st) so things move along swiftly, unlike Wythe...why encourage avoiding it? Someone enlighten me, please...
first of all that sign is pretty illegible from the street. The black on orange is hard to see. You only see DETOUR ROUTE and maybe "we urge all drivers...". Second of all, It would be funny if traffic were backed up. If the hasids get gridlocked it would sure get those bikers who can bike on every inch of sidewalk and street imaginable. all a biker needs is a sliver of road and he's good. I hope critical mass gets wind of this cause the hasids won't know what hit em.
My recollection is that it is illegal for a private sign to give direction for a public highway. Check the MV law.
Cover that sign with a blown up picture of goatse.cx
That'll learn 'em.
G-d, I am so tired of these exclusionary anachronisms and their outward hostility. Maybe Patterson will come up with a way to tax them for the excessive tsuris they create.
Rabosi listen up: You're making a bigger sign - great! Can't wait to see it. But do yourself a favor: just because you're making a bigger sign doesn't mean it should have more words on it - it should have less. Otherwise no one has any idea of what you're talking about. Also, get someone who's first language is English to write it, *not* Yiddish. Like one of those guys who goes to Chulent or something.
Kabbalah Energy Drink... Diet or Sugar?
They seem to be having simila problems with their website. Here one day gone the next.
http://www.kabbalahenergydrink.com/
So they wouldn't have a problem with my large sign on an adjacent private property that says: "Juden Sind Nicht Bei Hier Erwunscht."?
LOL
Drollig, sehr drollig.