Isn't There An Implied Understanding That Obviates Ugly and Bright PRIVATE PROPERTY NO TRESPASSING Signs?

The three lovely NO TRESPASSING signs that recently appeared along the edges of the long vacant property at 3rd & Columbia raise a few questions, don't they? 

First, what the hell is the problem the Islamic Center people are trying to solve by installing the PRIVATE PROPERTY NO TRESPASSING signs on their property?

Second, do vacant properties in the City of Hudson get some sort of special exemption regarding PRIVATE PROPERTY NO TRESPASSING signs?  Because if one property owner can post multiple orange PRIVATE PROPERTY NO TRESPASSING signs along a sidewalk or sidewalks surrounding their property, what's to prevent all property owners, whether their property is vacant or not, from posting multiple PRIVATE PROPERTY NO TRESPASSING signs along the sidewalk and on their front doors and windows?  Is this really the look we want for Hudson in the 21st century and beyond?

Third, how many NO TRESPASSING signs are allowed on one property?  How large can they be? Does Code Enforcement care?  Could the Islamic Center just as easily install 5 or 10 more NO TRESPASSING signs on their lot without anyone caring?  Why stop at just 3?  Are property owners required to be issued a sign permit from CEO for even one NO TRESPASSING sign on their property?  How about 15 of them?  (The code is clear:  ALL signs, including on private property and whether they are temporary or permanent, require either a permit or approval from the Code Enforcement Department.  ALL SIGNS!)

Fourth, why did the Islamic Center buy that lot seven years ago if all we get are fucking PRIVATE PROPERTY NO TRESPASSING signs to look at and be reminded of every time we are near their still vacant property whose only issue seems to be litter and dog shit being left on the lawn.  Yeah, sure, 3 PRIVATE PROPERTY NO TRESPASSING signs will fix those problems! For like the next forty years, no doubt, the same amount of time it will take the Islamic Center to still not have finished building their mosque across the street.  Come to think of it, why aren't there any NO TRESPASSING signs on that lovely property?  Don't they want to keep people from trespassing on their sacred building in forever progress?

Fifth, WE ALL KNOW YOUR VACANT LOT IS PRIVATE PROPERTY!  WE DON'T NEED TO BE REMINDED.  NO ONE WANTS TO TRESPASS ON YOUR PROPERTY.  PUT UP AN ATTRACTIVE FENCE IF YOU HAVE A TRESPASSING PROPBLEM.  AND CAN YOU PLEASE DO SOMETHING WORTHWHILE WITH YOU LOT OR SELL IT TO SOMEONE ELSE WHO WILL?

Sixth, could this be a cultural thing?  Do Muslims regard private property differently than, say, your typical non-Muslim property owner?

2nd ward council member Dewan Sarowar claims 
that he does not live in this house that he owns.  But his 
wife and child(ren) do.  He lives in a house that he pays rent 
on in the first block of Columbia where he receives
 his mail.  Of course he does!

Seventh, how do suppose council members Dewan Sarowar and Mohammed Rony feel about the new PRIVATE PROPERTY NO TRESSPASSING signs in their ward that are impossible to not see at one of the city's busiest intersections?  Do you think either one of them is even aware of the signs?  Would they even notice them if they walked right past them?   (Okay, stop laughing!)

How would Dewan Sarowar walk past anything at 3rd & Columbia -- let alone notice anything out of the ordinary in his ward -- if he lives with his wife and child(ren) in the house he has owned with her for the last ten years?  He does live with his wife and child(ren) in the house he owns on Green Acres Road in Greenport, doesn't he?   Why the heck wouldn't he?  Is he separated or divorced?  Is Dewan Sarowar (pronounced S-A-R-O-W-A-R) a phony grifter posing as a Hudson resident and Common Council member representing the 2nd ward (where he does not own any property)? 

 Are there multiple PRIVATE PROPERTY NO TRESPASSING signs on the lawn of Dewan's property in Greenport that he has co-owned with his wife for 10 years?  When Dewan steps out of the front door of 46 Green Acres Road in Greenport, does he see any PRIVATE PROPERTY NO TRESPASSING signs on his neighbors' lawns?  Dewan Sarowar does step out (an in) the front door of the house that he has owned for ten years at 46 Green Acres Road where his wife and child(ren) live, doesn't he?

Wouldn't it make sense for Dewan Sarowar to stand up at a Common Council meeting on his own volition and tell everyone that yes, he and his wife have owned a house in Greenport since May of 2016 but he hasn't slept or eaten there and doesn't call it home since he became a council member 4 years ago (was it 6?), and that he always sleeps, eats and lives in a rented house that he calls home in the first block of Columbia Street in the city's 2nd ward?  What council member wouldn't want to put to rest once and for all any obvious questions and suspicions swirling for years that the public and other council members might have about where they live and how it's possible they don't live with their spouse in the house they own with that spouse?  Wouldn't it make sense for the Common Council president to make Dewan Sarowar explain out loud to the council and the public where he lives, what property he calls home and why he doesn't live with his wife and children in the house he owns in Greenport where they do live?  And if he refuses to do so, to begin processing his ouster from the Common Council?  Because if Dewwan Sarowar is still living in the house he has owned in Greenport for the past ten years and the Common Council doesn't out and oust him, it's pretty difficult to have any faith or confidence in anything that City Hall, Margaret Morris and all ten council members do or say, isn't it?  Yes, one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch!  Not unlike PRIVATE PROPERTY NO TRESSPASSING signs spoiling a historic upstate city as if we're all living in a crappy trailer park or ghetto that City Hall has abandoned.