Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Proposed New Sign Ordinance

Having run for office now three times, I find the recent proposal submitted by the city council and supported by Mayor Richards a violation of our free speech as well as being un-American. I am referring to the recent sign ordinance that is being proposed.

If passed, the ability of candidates to run a campaign and get their names out will be severely hampered. When I have spoken with people, we all agree that campaign signs have gone bad. Candidates plaster the road with them, not with just one sign, but multiple signs. I have seen upwards of 20 signs by the same candidate in a row. They then leave their signs up for others to remove.

I have used signs and I have always marked the location of each and every sign put up. I put them up where they do not impair driver visibility. I begin pulling my signs down at 6:00 PM on Election Day. I have retrieved upwards of 40% of my signs with the majority being pulled down by others who were not authorized.

Many talk about how terrible the choice is for candidates, yet we make it difficult to run a campaign.

Many complain about the amount of money spent on political campaigns, yet the city council and Mayor’s office want to increase the cost to run a campaign.

Signs are by far the cheapest and best way to get your name out there.

This sign ordinance will make it more likely lobbies and the rich will control whom we have to vote for.

The two large parties most likely will like this sign proposal because it will limit individuals from running and voicing new ideas. Neither like mavericks or candidates not selected nor groomed by them. Instead of a proposal banning signs, we need a proposal that regulates signs.

  • Requirement on date signs can be up.
  • Requirement on number of signs in anyone location a candidate may have.
  • Requirement on size of sign so that safety is not impaired.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home



NBC-33 Debate poll results from 2002