|
Title: Campaign Signs Post by: akupetsky on March 25, 2008, 04:25:10 am http://www.flickr.com/photos/24945701@N04/2355499198
I understand that, as part of its review of LED signs, the City Council this year may review existing laws prohibiting the placement of campaign signs on city property. I think it's a good idea to reexamine this law because, as it stands now, those candidates that comply with the law are at a disadvantage against those candidates willing to break the law in order to save time and a lot of effort. (Sort of makes you wonder why someone who breaks the law should be trusted to make the law, but that's a different issue.) Anyway, do you think this is a good law? Title: Campaign Signs Post by: sgrizzle on March 25, 2008, 05:01:57 am (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2323/2355499198_10e28e3ca1.jpg?v=1206405975)
Title: Campaign Signs Post by: Wilbur on March 25, 2008, 05:44:29 am If you allow campaign signs, you have to allow all signs.
I'd rather keep the status quo, see someone in government grow a pair and actually have the sign police enforce some of their own rules, which means fining some of our own government officials when campaign season gets into full swing. Title: Campaign Signs Post by: waterboy on March 25, 2008, 07:50:18 am I agree with Wilbur. Sign nazi has convinced me that they are more nuisance than freedom of expression. But we have as much chance of keeping political signs at bay as we do stopping graffiti. Best we can do is manage it. Fine anyone involved with them including the sign producer if possible. Charities and school fundraisers should be exempt.
Title: Campaign Signs Post by: Gaspar on March 25, 2008, 08:15:30 am I find myself less likely to vote for a candidate if they have littered the streets with signs.
There is a tasteful way to do it where you have a sign at an intersection, and then there is what I would constitute as vandalism like the Obama signs that were placed in front of the Walmart at 81st and Lewis. There must have been 300 of them within a 200 Sf. strip of grass. If you figure that each sign costs $.25 to print and assemble, massing them would be a big waste of money. Perhaps as a preliminary sign of fiscal responsibility, candidates could mandate how they want their signs placed. This would not only save them money but I think it would reflect positively on their campaign and the intelligence of their volunteers/supporters. Whoever was placing the Obama Signs like that, communicated a lot! Title: Campaign Signs Post by: sgrizzle on March 25, 2008, 09:01:36 am I emailed father's house church because they have illegally placed signs all over the place. I understand politicians, dating sites, and weight loss gurus have no morals but I was hoping churches did. Apparently this one doesn't.
|