WineBoard
GETTING L.A. - Printable Version

+- WineBoard (https://www.wines.com/wineboard)
+-- Forum: RESOURCES AND OTHER STUFF (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-300.html)
+--- Forum: Wine and Politics (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: GETTING L.A. (/thread-2913.html)



- Jerry D Mead - 01-04-1999

PHYLLOXERA to the city of Los Angeles and its Mayor Richard Riordan for forgetting about a thing called the First Amendment by passing an ordinance banning outdoor advertising for wine (and beer and spirits)...even though an almost identical ordinance in Chicago was rejected by a Federal District Court. One can't help but wonder how much it will cost taxpayers to try to defend this obviously unconstitutional law.


- EPICURUS - 01-04-1999

You ask an appropriate, elementary question if indeed the two ordinances are the same. But common sense would lead one to assume that the LA city attorney's office did its homework before allowing the mayor to proceed. I know, I'm giving those bureaucrats too much credit. But just maybe in light of case law elsewhere, like Chicago, the LA law was crafted to avoid the legal challenges that shot down other 'similar' ordinances.

I'd be interested to know what Mr. Hinman and Mr. Lee think.

[This message has been edited by EPICURUS (edited 01-04-99).]


- Jerry D Mead - 01-04-1999

I was quoting from a wire service or LA Times (I don't remember which at the moment) story...not from a wine publication, for whatever that's worth.

Even if there are some changes, I'm still betting it gets ruled unconstitutional. The feds and Supremes have not been allowing the perceived evils of alcohol to deny it its constitutional rights.

JDM