So I went down the Taxpayer Owned Farmers Market to talk about the ball park proposal...

I went today, by myself, with my proposal for War Memorial Stadium to present to vendors and introduce my candidacy. 

The City of Greensboro owns the property. 

Was told by staff after talking to about 25 vendors that soliciting wasn't permitted.

I very enjoyed meeting those that I did.

Running for public office is not soliciting.

I objected on freedom of speech grounds with staff, as I am running for mayor.

We agreed to ask the city to clarify.

I found the market manager and staff to be wonderfully courteous and very kind.

We had great fun.

Spoke with David craft on my way out about it. 

The following is a copy of their solicitation policy;

Running for mayor is not soliciting.

I don't see why vendors should be censored.

I don't understand why the GFM should be the arbiter of what political messages are allowed or not.

How many politicians in Greensboro have introduced themselves at the farmers market?
.
.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has established the public-forum doctrine to examine whether certain types of public property are open to First Amendment expressive activity.

First Amendment rights apply the most in a traditional public forum, such as a public park.  In its 1939 decision Hague v. C.I.O. the U.S. Supreme Court explained: “Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.”

The general rule is that government officials may not impose content-based restrictions on speech in a public forum. This means that city officials must not treat different persons and groups of persons differently on the basis of the content (and viewpoint) of their messages. The government can justify content-based speech restrictions only by showing that it has a compelling state interest in imposing them (such as safety or security concerns), and that it has done so in a narrowly tailored way.

...The theory is that when the government opens a forum up to the public, it shouldn’t be able to skew discussions by over-regulating expression."