General Crime

* SO DID COUNCILMEN OLIVERIO STEAL? YOU DECIDE

Letter to the editor

On October 23rd Councilmen Pierluigi Oliverio was accused by several citizens of stealing “No On V” signs. Councilmen Pierluigi Oliverio and Mayor Reed said that they did not steal any signs and that Pierluigi Oliverio could take down the signs legally by law. The Mayor turned it around and said that trying to arrest the Councilmen was illegal. The Police & Fire Fighters say no that is wrong, he should be arrested. The Police have to accept my lawful arrest.

This is more of the same we have been hearing from the two sides. Both sides say the other side is lying. Two sides that as citizens we respect. We respect the Mayors Office that they would tell the truth, but we also respect and trust the 2000 men and women Fire Fighters and Police Officers who keep us safe. So who is telling the truth? You decide who is telling the truth.

Here is what the San Jose Municipal Code Law says about removing election signs:
23.04.770 Removal of election signs from public property.
A.     Election signs on public property may be removed without notice pursuant to Section 23.02.880 of this title.
B.     The director shall cause a list of election signs removed from public property to be filed with the city clerk, for public information.
(Ords. 24201, 24835.)

23.02.880 Authority to remove illegal signs in public right-of-way.
A.     Any illegal signs in the public right-of-way may be removed by the city.
B.     Any illegal sign of de minimus value in the public right-of-way may also be removed by volunteers on behalf of the city.
C.     No notice shall be required prior to removal of illegal signs, including without limitation elections signs, in the public right-of-way.
D.     Any sign removed by the city, except any sign of de minimus value, shall be held in storage and the owner or other person in control of such sign, if known, shall be given written notice and ten days to reclaim such sign.
E.     Any sign held in storage by the city may be destroyed by the city if not reclaimed:
1.     In the time period set forth in subsection D. above; or
2.     Within ten days after removal if the owner or other person in control of such sign is not known.
F.     In order to reclaim a sign removed by the city, the owner or other person in control of such sign shall first pay to the city a fee as set forth in the schedule of fees adopted by resolution of the city council.
G.     Any illegal sign in the public right-of-way of de minimus value shall be deemed to be abandoned and may be destroyed by the city after removal. No opportunity to reclaim such sign shall be given by the city.
H.     For purposes of this section, any sign made of cardboard or other nondurable material shall be deemed to be of de minimus value.
(Ords. 24201, 24835.)

The Law is clear that before any sign can be taken down the director shall make a list of signs to remove and it must be filed with the city clerk for public information. This is great law and protects freedom of speech. Was a list made? I was not able to find one.

The law is clear that the city can clearly take the signs down. But Pierluigi Oliverio or the Mayor is not the city he is a citizen.

The law says on behalf of the city volunteers can remove signs. But the city would still have to have to sponsor this type of event. The city would have to direct which signs to be taken down. Notice with the City Clerk would still have to be given.

The signs have to be held for 10 days and written notice that they were removed must be given to the owner. Because of this law it is best to let the city take down the signs so all laws are followed.

I think with a complaint the Police could remove the signs and follow the above Municipal Code. The Police could also determine if the property is truly public or private. The Police are also an agent of the City.

The Law protects everyone. The Law protects this property from being destroyed without trying to return it to its owner. The Law protects freedom of speech.

Think about if you were running a small campaign and you put up signs and the incumbent came along and ripped them down. Remember Prop 8 neither side would want their signs ripped down. Both Pierluigi Oliverio and Mayor Reed are telling citizens to rip down the signs. I think the Mayor has told only half the truth. But here is the Law you decide who is telling the truth.

It seems when two sides are clearly telling two stories a third party would be best to come in and decide who is telling the truth?

Wil Smoke Almaden Valley

Leave a Comment

6 Comments

  • I dont like to call people names but after watching the video and going to this guys facebook he seems like a punk. I dont think I would trust anything he said.

  • Mr Smoke nice job on clarification of the procedure required to remove political signs. If this is a true representation of the procedure then Oliverio clearly violated procedure. The Mayor clearly did not do his homework before he said that Oliverio was acting within policy. I am not sure if this is a crime though, it is clearly a lack of ethics and should be dealt with accordingly. I also have read up on the measure V and W I agree with most, measure V is misrepresented by the Mayor. It appears that it is more of a power struggle. I will be voting no on that. Now measure W I see can help with budget problems. I will vote yes on that. I think an arbitrator may be needed down the road when the economy recovers in order to keep the City Of San Jose honest. As we have all seen sometimes honesty and ethics get lost in the political arena.

  • I just have one question: Did Councilman Oliviero also remove any “Vote Yes on V” signs or did he do just a half job?
    I mean if he removed the Vote No on V signs because he was performing his duty, he should have also removed any other type of signs that were illegally posted and as anyone can agree that there are all kinds of signs posted all over the Willow Glen area, garage and yard sale signs, slow down kids playing signs,help wanted signs and so on.
    No I feel that he had other intentions on his mind and it is very unfortunate that he demonstrated that by his arrogant and smug attitude when he was confronted. I am glad though for the education and now I as a citizen will do my part to research and document City laws and be prepared to vote when it comes time for the re-election of these types of individuals.
    Thank You.

  • Brian I have to agree with you it is a clear violation or crime. I guess it would be petty if this guy was not a council person. I have read all these comments and it sounds like the Reed is empowering this dysfunctional behavior. I would have more respect for the mayor if he did the right thing. As far a right or wrong on measure V it seems to me a third party or a judge in this case an arbitrator should be in the mix. I am embarrassed for our City Officials. I have talked to friends about this and the Mayor has done a good job at clouding the issue. I was going to vote yes but I think there needs to be more clear information on how exactly this will help with City budget now. So I say guilty and no on V now.

  • Well it seems petty but I get it, if this is a true clarification of the law Guilty. It seems more of a lack of ethics though to me. May be an appropriate action should be punishment from within. This will truly hurt his political career if he cares about that.

Show Buttons
Hide Buttons