Estate Planning, Probate & Elder Law Attorneys

» Lower net at Gamco, loss at SMH

»  The Great 401(k) Escape
If the offerings in your employer's plan aren't so great, put your money elsewhere.

» American International Group, Allianz

» The Oak Park Ban on "For Sale" Signs -- The Controversy Continues

I've complained loudly in the past about Oak Park's unconstitutional ban on "for sale" signs. The issue has arisen once again -- here are links to the present controversy:

It's time to rethink For Sale signs, by Ed Messina (3/18/08)

Rethink 'For Sale' signs? Think again, by Dan Lauber (3/25/08)

Galewood integrated without engineering, by Ed Messina (4/1/08)

No, it's not time to go back to For Sale Signs, by Kurt Hedlund (4/8/08)

Galewood used OP techniques to integrate, by Kurt Hedlund (4/8/08)

The most frightening thing to me about the above exchange is the editor's note at the end of Mr. Messina's 4/1/08 piece. It says, "Contrary to conventional wisdom, there is no formal For Sale sign ban in the village. It's a longstanding, voluntary agreement among local Realtors at the request of the village."

I can only assume that this was an April Fool's Day joke. When I check the Oak Park village code (via the village's website), and click through to the Village Code page (here), I see section 13-2-3. That section reads as follows (the emphasis is mine):

13-2-3: REAL ESTATE FOR RENT AND FOR SALE SIGNS PROHIBITED:

The President and Board of Trustees find as follows:

A. That a prohibition of "For Sale" and "Sold" signs has been recommended by the Commission on Community Relations on the basis that said signs tend to encourage unfair housing practices and tend to defeat the purposes of the Village's Human Rights Program.

B. That a prohibition of "For Rent" signs has been recommended by the Commission on Community Relations for the following reasons:

1. "For Rent" signs presently are used more frequently in areas that have a greater percentage of occupancy of minority residents. "For Rent" signs are seldom used in connection with buildings that have no minority occupants. The use of these signs therefore tends to "signal" that minorities may be more welcome in some areas of the Village than others and this tends to segregate areas contrary to the policy of the Village to maintain an integrated community.

2. A proliferation of "For Rent" signs encourages panic peddling and block busting.

3. "For Rent" signs may give an appearance of community instability when concentrated in a limited geographic area.

4. A proliferation of "For Rent" signs may infer that an area is less desirable than other areas.

5. A system of apartment management that refers tenants to the source of rentals will encourage greater professionalism in apartment management.

It shall, therefore, be unlawful for any person to construct, place, maintain or install a "For Sale", "Sold" or "For Rent" sign on any property developed for residential use in the Village. The term "For Sale" sign shall include signs carrying the following or similar words: "Open House" or "Open for Inspection" and shall include any other devices placed on the property to indicate that the property is for sale.

In the case of new construction of residential property or conversion of an existing structure to condominium use where a condominium declaration is recorded, a "For Sale" sign shall be permitted on the property until the property or condominium units are sold, but not to exceed one and a half (1 1/2) years after issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a new building or from the date the "For Sale" sign is posted in the case of a conversion. (1981 Code)

Does that look to you like an informal, voluntary agreement between the village and local realtors?

My letter to the editor was published on April 8 -- here it is (yay! I'm officially a crank!) The Features/Viewpoints editor for The Wednesday Journal, Ken Trainor, tried to respond to my concern about the constitutionality of Oak Park's ban with this editorial, published at the same time. My two problems with Mr. Trainor's editorial are:

1. He admits that, "in 2003, we were told by staff at village hall that there was no official For Sale sign ban. it was simply a voluntary ban observed by local Realtors all these years. Well, they weren't being entirely upfront about that. Turns out the ban is still on the books, only it's not enforced." And yet, in 2008, the viewpoints page of The Wednesday Journal includes an editor's note stating that ""Contrary to conventional wisdom, there is no formal For Sale sign ban in the village. It's a longstanding, voluntary agreement among local Realtors at the request of the village." I don't know which is worse -- that the Village would lie to The Wednesday Journal about the nature of the ban in 2003, or that The Wednesday Journal would perpetuate that lie by repeating it in 2008.

2. Mr. Trainor tries to make the argument that "Oak Park might very well be able to withstand a court challenge" on the ban. I'm not a big fan of the John Yoo school of legal thought, where a clear law that you don't like can be read to say whatever you want it to say. The Supreme Court stated, in 1977, that bans on "For Sale" signs of the type employed in Oak Park are unconstitutional. The reasoning for that ban given by Justice Marshall is pretty clear (the opinion is available here). That Mr. Trainor thinks the ban will be overturned by showing "the documented resegregation of the West Side of Chicago" only shows US that Mr. Trainor either hasn't read or doesn't understand the case. And all the thousands of words put down in The Wednesday Journal about why Oak Park needs the ban, has to have the ban, will be destroyed if the ban is lifted, are just wasted.

Note that I am not commenting on whether Oak Park should be able to do what the Village, Mr. Trainor, and others seem to want it to do -- protect Oak Park from the (in their opinion) danger of low-income black people swarming into the community and destroying it once the "For Sale" sign ban is lifted. Rather, I'm stating that, if Mr. Trainor and the Village want to maintain what they see as an "appropriate" level of diversity in Oak Park, they're going to have to figure out a different way to do it.

» Citi to sell $500B worth of 'legacy' assets