THE FIRM

THEOPHILOPOULOS LAW
PERSONAL INJURY & CRIMINAL LAW

Gerasimos “Jerry” Theophilopoulos 649 E. Tarpon Ave.

Trial Attorney Tarpon Springs, FL 34689
jerry@theolaw.com Tel. (727) 945-1112
theolaw.com Fax. (727) 945-9224

August 12, 2020

Steve Colandrea
Code Investigator
City of St. Petersburg
P.O. Box 2842
St. Pete, FL 33731

RE: James McLynas

449 129th Ave. E. #11
Madeira Beach, FL 33708-2613
Prohibited Signage, Case No. 20-00016938

Dear Mr. Colandrea:

Please be advised that this firm has been retained on behalf of James McLynas, a
candidate for Pinellas County Sheriff. Please direct all future communications
regarding this matter to my attention and cease from contacting my client either
directly or indirectly.

Your letter is constructed as a code violation for the property located at 2220
Central Ave. in St. Petersburg Florida. However, my client, James McLynas is not a
property owner at that location and therefore not subject to any code violations
related to that property. After investigating this location, the event that your letter
references is also not located on the property owned by St. Petersburg Investment
Company, as indicated by your letter. In fact, the event you are referencing relates
to a public right of way and a public sidewalk, not any privately owned property
anywhere in that general area.

Your assertion that the “property was in violation of the St. Petersburg City Code” is
not factually correct. If you have any information or documentation that St.
Petersburg Investment Company or my client Mr. McLynas owns the public
sidewalk, please submit that documentation for my review immediately.
Furthermore, in your letter’s “violation detail” you state that ”Sign(s) pressure
washed into public sidewalks and other areas of a public right of way are prohibited
within the city of Petersburg”. However, you failed to provide any such rule,
regulation, legal definition, law or code to substantiate that allegation. Please
provide that specific written prohibition on “pressure washed into public sidewalks
and other areas of a public right of way” immediately for my review. The campaign
artwork that I viewed at the location you reference is not a sign in accordance with
State, County, or city law. According to your city’s own sign ordinance, “Artwork” is
defined as follows:

Artwork means drawings, pictures, symbols, paintings (including the

painting of patterns or designs) or sculpture, which does not in any way
include a company or corporate logo; or text identifying any product,
service or business sold or available on the premises, or text advertising
a business at another location.

My client’s “campaign artwork” does not in any way or form “include a company or
corporate logo, or text identifying any product, service or business sold or available
on the premises or text advertising a business at another location”. Therefore, by
your own sign code’s definition, his “campaign artwork” is exactly that, “artwork”.

Additionally, “Section 16.40.120.10 - Exempt signs” of the St.

Petersburg sign codes specially states that “artwork” is exempt.

Section 16.40.120.10 - Exempt signs

The following sign types are exempt from the permitting process and
are exempt from other provisions of this sign code, but are not exempt
from the requirements imposed by this subsection or from applicable
requirements of the sign code relating to construction, illumination,
placement, safety, and nonconformity, and are not exempt from other
regulations related to public health, safety and welfare. Such sign types
are not calculated as part of allowable freestanding or wall signs unless
included as an integral component of a freestanding or wall sign.

Artwork. Artwork, provided that all of the following criteria are

met:
1.The artwork meets the definition of "artwork" in this sign code; and|
2.If the artwork is to be located on a structure that is a designated historic landmark
or within a designated historic district, such location shall require approval of a
certificate of appropriateness as prescribed in the Code for the preservation of
historic landmarks and historic districts.

Clearly this artwork “meets the definition of artwork in this sign code”. It is also
not located on a structure that is designated a historical landmark or within a
designated historic district”. This artwork also does not violate any Public health,
safety or welfare considerations. This “campaign artwork” has no “construction or
illumination” issues. It has no “placement” issues as your entire sign code does not
address any signage literally placed on the ground, nor does it specify any
permitting process to obtain a permit for a sign on the ground. This clearly
indicates that the city of St. Peterburg sees no danger in anything being placed on
the ground, especially in my client’s case where literally nothing is “placed” on the
ground. The campaign artwork is not a sign, in fact it is literally nothing at all other
than a relocation of dirt or smudge. Also, my client also did not “write” anything on
any surface. It is not illegal or a code violation to randomly clean. It is not illegal or
a code violation to throw water at a dirty sidewalk. How others interpret the
patterns created does not magically create a code violation to my client.

Your letter further states “if these violation(s) are not corrected before August 9,
2020, the city will proceed with legal action”. I would like for you to very
specifically detail exactly what these “corrections” you are demanding would entail.
What specific “corrections” are you demanding? If my client had actually posted a
real “sign” at those locations, surely your letter would specify “removing” the
structure, fixture, placard or device. However, since my client has literally left
nothing behind, there is therefore nothing for him to remove.

Are you suggesting that my client go back out to the location of the city’s unkept,
dirty sidewalks adjacent to the dirt he has allegedly already cleaned up? If this is the
case, can you please show me any law, statute, case cite, regulation or code
enforcement action that would give the City of St. Petersburg the authority to order
any citizen to clean any portion of any public property that they themselves had no
part in soiling? Are you asking my client to remove natural built up residue on
public property? There is nothing to correct in this matter other than the City of St.
Petersburg’s failure to maintain the public common areas.

The only thing that my client has allegedly left behind is his constitutionally
protected, first amendment free speech. If Mr. McLynas stood on any sidewalk in St.
Pete he would have the first amendment legal right to basically speak whatever he
likes. He has the full legal right to express himself any way that he sees fit and the
City of St. Pete does not have the right to silence that free speech.

Furthermore, campaign speech in our democratic society is the most protected of all
free speech. It can be argued that your attack of Mr. McLynas’ free speech is
politically motivated, since this campaign artwork, harms nobody, is not a safety
hazard, does not block public view, does not create any trash, debris or pollution
and in no way harms the public sidewalk. It can also be argued that you are pursing
my client for merely exposing the lack of cleanliness and upkeep of public
easements and sidewalks in St. Petersburg. Are you now asking him to do the city’s
job of power washing the sidewalks?

In closing, I would caution the City of St. Pete from taking any action against my
client that can be construed as violating his free speech, a politically motivated
attack, or authorizing any destruction or damage to my client’s free speech
campaign messages until after November 3, 2020.

GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY.

Respectfully,

Jerry Theophilopoulos, Esq.