"Skip" the Editorial

     Another slap at city government and the mayor appeared in a CS editorial on August 30, 2011.
     What's untrue?
     "Admissions in court papers that student housing landlords are violating the city's housing codes -- without any action so far by City Hall."
     The opposite is true. CS knows this, or should know this. Why doesn't CS add detailed evidence to support this ridiculous assumption? Attorneys working for the city are trying to remove an injunction against the city. Why not explain that to the public? Champions of the First Amendment should lead with the truth.
     CS doesn't like it when the landlords violate city housing codes and claim unconstitutional Fourth Amendment violations. When an ordinance on the number of lawn signs becomes a controversy and CS defines multiple lawn signs as free speech,  the editor proclaims that "censoring participation in local election campaigns is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment." That's stretching an argument to the breaking point. May as well allow property owners to erect billboards on their lawns.
     It's acceptable for CS to cite violations of the Constitution, but not acceptable for landlords to cite violations of the same Constitution. Pick and choose? Or -- the law is what CS says it should be?
     The law governing lawn signs "was adopted in 2003." Why not chastise the members of common council who voted for it and the mayor who signed it in 2003? Place the blame, if there is any blame, where it belongs.