Political Lawn Signs
Posted by DickH on 15 Aug 2009 at 10:13 am | Tagged as: 2009 Election, Lowell-2009
I’ve noticed an increasing number of lawn signs for city council candidates appearing in front yards around the city. I have no problem with this – it’s fun to count signs and try to figure out the back story of each one (a relative’s house? A friend? What’s the connection?). Unfortunately, I believe that a city ordinance, which I was unable to quickly find on the city’s website, prohibits the erection of political lawn signs until a certain number of days before the election.
My recollection is that the rule is 17 days before the election. That means that with this year’s city election being held on Tuesday, November 2, the earliest that signs could be emplaced would by Saturday, October 17. As I said, I look forward to lawn signs going up, but I don’t want to see the candidates who are jumping the gun (all the signs I’ve seen thus far belong to challengers) get ambushed with some negative publicity about “violating the law” or something of that nature. And we all know that given the nature of politics in this community, that will surely happen.
This “timing of signs going up” raises two issues: The first is the elimination of the primary election which, while not finalized, seems likely. If there is a primary on September 29, lawn signs could legally go up on Saturday, September 12. Since no one has ever interpreted the ordinance to require signs to come down for two weeks between the primary election and the pre-general election sign window (although technically that’s what would have to happen), that would allow signs to be up from September 12 up to the November 2 election. This lengthier period of lawn sign exposure would certainly benefit challengers who are struggling to build name recognition by depriving them of an inexpensive and effective way of accomplishing that.
The second issue touched upon by this ordinance is the practice of putting political signs in the windows of businesses. The sign ordinance as commonly interpreted around here, at least, seems to exempt this practice from any time limits. This raises the kind of questions that keep lawyers employed: Is a sign in the window of a business closer to a bumper sticker which is allowed at anytime, or does it most resemble a sign in a homeowner’s front lawn which is prohibited until just before the election?
Any thoughts?
I understandt that according to the City Election Commission and Building Dept., that rule was dropped and there is no such limitation.
This question was asked a few weeks ago on one of the local blogs (LIL) and the poster was flamed for even suggesting the impropriety of it.
I hope that if someone aspires to hold city wide office, they are capable of finding the answer to this question.
If this information is correct - that the 17 day window for lawn signs - has been abolished, that’s great news. Like campaign finance reports, lawn signs are an early indicator of a candidate’s support. It’s still a long way till Nov 2, so lawn signs before Labor Day will give us something else to talk about.
Mayor Bud disagrees with you GZ - he says it is still in effect.
Section 6.3.2.6 of the zoning ordinance includes the statement:
“An election sign is permitted if it is stationary, unlighted, temporary, and is not attached to a utility pole, fence, tree or other vegetation, or upon a public right-of-way, or attached to any structure (except that such as sign may be displayed in a window.”
Elsewhere, “temporary” is defined as a period not to exceed 30 days.
So, windows are OK for the “attachment” clause, but they should still be temporary. Until the preliminary election is waived, the target date for signs should be August 31st.
The word “unenforceable” comes to mind.
Maybe the city can write tickets and collect fines from violators? Enough to pay for the primary?
Aha - Now Jack has an idea whose time has definitely come. Make the “rules” clear to everyone. And raise the fines for the offenders. Personally _ I think no lawn or any other signs before Labor Day is a good thing. They don’t determine who/ whom I vote for.
Not sure if the Mayor checked with those departments. This is what I was told by one of the campaigns including a clerk’s name at the Buildings Dept. and after their call to the Election Commission. This pertains to private property only, of course. We will count on Dick H. to confirm the accuracy on Monday unless the Mayor, with his own key to the City can deliver a definitive answer earlier.
Jason, Myr. Caulfield was on the CC when they reportedly abolished the sign ordinance 8 years ago. Just the info I’ve received.
But, see, I think the CC and many challengers particularly like the “grey” area surrounding signs. Every year, this question is asked and every year..we DON’t get any clarity.
Any regulation regarding the erection of political signs should only apply to public property.Property rights will always be a contentious issue between adversaries but political signs should not be prohibited by anyone other than the property owner unless the sign is an obstruction for motorists.
JZ - so the political signs on the fence at Walsh Field and Pawtucketville Memorial School or any other publicly funded & maintained field should be removed..based on your statement? Right?
Late to the comments here, but my $.02.
First, I object to the statement in the post, “That means that with this year’s city election being held on Tuesday, November 2, the earliest that signs could be emplaced would by Saturday, October 17″ on the grounds that the Home Rule petition on our preliminary is not yet passed OR signed. You could have an effect on this if you wanted to, there is still time to contact our legislature and the Governor.
Secondarily, I also have had conflicting reports on the actual statute. So obviously, it’s NOT the case that for sure, the ordinance is 17 days in advance. It appears to be, at a minimum, up in the air.
Thirdly, I sort of concur with John Zagarella that I should be allowed to post a sign on my private property if I want. The visual public good argument (”signs clutter up the landscape too early”) - I mean, really, are there so many signs in a local election that this is really a problem?
Oh and to Jason, what do you mean by flamed? Do you have a link? As I recall, someone made an accusation against a candidate putting up signs, but I don’t recall anyone actually responding. Can you enlighten me?
I’d prefer that there be no time limit on when political lawn signs can go up but my recollection is that there is some rule in place that governs this. Looking for the answer, I spent about 10 minutes on the city’s website and could find nothing on the subject (it might be there; it’s just not easy to find). From the range of comments listed here, it appears that a clear answer to this question remains elusive.
The requirement is not elusive.
The latest zoning code for the City of Lowell is dated 26 August, 2008.
http://www.lowellma.gov/depts/dpd/permitting/zoning/ZoningOrdinance07
In section 6.3.2, item 6 the requirements for “election signs” are listed. One of those requirements is that it be “temporary”.
In section 6.3.2, item 17 is the definition of “temporary”, being of a period not greater than 30 days.
What may be elusive is the enforcement of the ordinance.
IMO, item 17 is distinctly separate from item 6.
Signs will begin to go up at my house after Labor Day. That is widely accepted, by politicos, as the beginning of the election season.
I don’t expect any hassle as, 1. I won’t be putting up 4′x6′ signs fastened to my yard with 2×4s and 2. I don’t live along Andover Street.
Dick is correct that the City once had a zoning ordinance that restricted the placement of election signs to a specific time period before an election. However, when the City engaged and outside zoning attorney to assist us with the redrafting of the entire City Zoning Ordinance back in 2004, he informed us of a decision of the US Supreme Court (I don’t remember the citation but can provide it to those who wish to email me at my office) that essentially established that the City’s ordinance was unconstitutional. The case specifically exempted political signs placed in the windows of residences or businesses from any regulation at all.
Subsequent conversations with the Mass Attorney General’s office have confirmed that the City cannot regulate other political signage, including lawn signs unless we regulate all temporary signs in exactly the same manner. To do so would mean that all realtors and people selling houses would only be able to place “for sale” signs in their yards for the same period before an election. The same would be true for contractors who place signs on job sites, as well as the City’s mandated signage for parties that have applied for a permit. Obviously that would make no sense. However to regulate the political signs and not the others has been deemed by the Attorney General to be a regulation of the content of signage that specifically prejudices political speech (again unconstitutional).
As a result, the City Council did vote in 2004 to eliminate the specific ordinances the City used to have that regulated political signs and no such law is on the books today. If one were, it would be unenforcable as some have noted, but only because it would also be unconstitutional.
An interesting side note is that many communities regulate the size of political signs. Lowell does not. However, this could be done if the City Council wished, provided that the same size restrictions applied to realtors, zoning permit application notices, contractor signs, and all other temporary signage as well.
Adam, thanks for clearing that up. So political signs of any type can go up any time, anywhere.
City election signs are fine. I dislike the ones that go up for federal elections, as they seem to get placed every three feet on public property and become more of a blight than anything else.
It looks like I was right and the Mayor was wrong on signs. He should have checked the facts before speaking out. He has far more access to City Hall than the rest of us. Between misinformation on signs, the claim of huge savings on the elimination of the primary, and siding with the majority on the firing of Andy Sheehan; the Mayor is looking light on substance and heavy on partisanship. I know Bud works hard, no one denies that, but he needs to be less partisan in order to be more of an ambassador bringing people together.