Anonymous strikes again!

I’m all in favour of dissent. Really! Even if I wasn’t, I’ve written nothing on this website that would indicate that I don’t tolerate other points of view.

But I can’t debate with a shadow, and in this case the shadow is the anonymous person that has a bee in his or her bonnet about the sliver of paper on the notice board about this website.

First this person just took down the notices. Then he/she took down the notice and made up a rule about the use of the notice board. Now he/she has taken down the sign and — rather ironically — replaced it with another sign referring to a “designated bulletin board” (which, apparently, didn’t exist last week in his/her mind) and quoting the Bylaws, and in so doing has appointed him/herself the Trinity Place by-law enforcer. Can it get any more ludicrous?

So here we go:

Dear Anonymous:

I applaud your efforts to police Trinity Place. Without you there would be chaos. However, I can quote laws and by-laws as well as you — as I have done on the latest replacement sign because you won’t come out of the shadows and debate me in a more logical forum than the notice board.

If I receive a written directive from Council that they have rescinded the unrestricted (in terms of length of time) permission granted to me to post a notice about this website, and that directive is accompanied by the minutes of the meeting where that is decided, I will respect that decision pending further action to challenge it. (And challenge it I will.) But if the sign goes to a vote, and if my understanding of my discussions with some members of Council are correct, then the vote will at least be close. If permission is rescinded without a vote, then … well … that will actually only serve to confirm certain things that I’m already concerned about.

As alluded to in my latest rebuttal of your actions, I consider this a free speech issue. The sign is not advertising a bicycle that I had for sale six months ago. The sign advertises an existing and ongoing forum where Owners and residents can engage in free speech related to Trinity Place, the building where all of us have collectively invested millions of dollars in our homes. The fact that the sign continues to be relevant and still exists is no different to including your company name and address on every letter you send. Your correspondents already know the address, but you include it anyway. Similarly, most Owners and residents know this website exists but, like anyone (especially when it comes to ephemeral websites), we need reminding occasionally. Why do you think Coca-Cola still spends millions of dollars on advertising a product everyone already knows about?

So, once again, I applaud your concern for the unrestricted posting of notices around Trinity Place. I invite you to summon your courage and post your thoughts and opinions here. Go ahead. I know you can do it if you try.

Craig Hartnett

Notice board notice, 2011-10-31