While the County of Los Angeles ignores 100's of thousands of the legal signs and at least dozens in Aqua Dulce and Acton they have cited a homeowner for posting a political sign on his property opposing the airport.
The fact that the US Supreme Court found unanimously in 1994 in City of Ladue v. Gilleo, U.S. (1994) found that these signs were protected speech and protected under the First Amendment was ignored. The Supreme court found a that similar city law "The ordinance violates a Ladue resident's right to free speech".
The fact that our county ignores precedential Supreme Court case in an effort to help the airport and its co-conspirators is abominable.
Jose Garria of Regional Planning needs to stand in a corner for a few hours reciting a few thousand times that the US Supreme Court trumps the Department of Regional Planning of LA County.
He further look at the other commercial the illegal signs in Acton and Agua Dulce. this paper is calling for every citizen to cite the location and content of all the illegal signs in Acton and Aguat Dulce. we will handle the reporting of them to Mr. Garcia and incest he notify each property owner to immediately remove the illegal sign. and if he refuses will raise funds to bring a lawsuit against the county for selectively enforcing laws particularly for the benefit of the hate aqua Dulce Airport.
the fact at the airport has a changeable type sign that appears to be road right-of-way and the fact there is a large sign promoting the liquor store at the corner of Sierra Highway and agriculture Canyon seems to be ignored by the county.
in fact the proposed modifications to the airport to ignore the fact that the FAA law under section 161 specifically exempts laws passed before its adoption in 1991. but the same idiots at regional planning claim the law forces the repeal of the ban on jets and helicopters and allows what amounts to an uncontrol expansion of the airport.
It seems the county only interprets the law when it supports the airport and attempts to use the law to quash protected speech against the airport.
For those of you who are interested here's a Supreme Court case supporting a total ban on the signage on public property City Council V. Taxpayers For Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984)
The pictures from the LA Times web site of their story opposing the airport should receive an award for the rabbit crossing the road confirming the rural conditions of Aqua Dulce.