In his May 23 letter to the Acorn, Peter Carrube felt that his constitutional rights were being trod upon by the city's passing of the no-flier ordinance.

However, he offered no constitutional support for this assertion. That might be because there is none. It's clear, however, that the Constitution does not secure business owners the right to violate the private property of others with their advertising.

Unfortunately, Mr. Carrube's letter indicates that he hasn't taken the car owner's feelings into account or the concept that his method of advertising conscripts the car owners into becoming a second party to his uninvited campaign via their need to perform windshield cleanup duty after he leaves his mark.

For these reasons, I cannot seem to muster too much sympathy for his cause.

Those shopping center parking lots and fairgrounds that Mr. Carrube admits to walking through to distribute his fliers are privately owned, and he really has no legal or ethical right to utilize them for his own business promotional purposes.

That would be like me setting up my lemonade stand on his front lawn without asking him. Not a very polite or respectful thing to do.

I strongly dislike having advertising placed on my car. It's a flatout violation of my personal property. It's as unwanted as a dinnertime phone solicitor or a junk fax.

And since I'm not one to throw the unwanted flier on the ground, I'm stuck with disposing of it, which cuts into my valuable time.

Because of the annoyance factor, I generally won't do business with people who use this method of advertising. I wish him every success, but if Mr. Carrube is truly "community friendly" as he says, he might want to prove it by not placing his litter on our cars in the future. Mark Buchler Simi Valley