The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Dear Municipal Candidates:

Please be aware that City of Tulsa ordinances prohibit political signs on public rights-of-way.  Signs in the public right-of-way impair the City's ability to maintain the rights-of-way and increase the costs to our citizens.

Title 42 of the Zoning Code, Section 225.A.7 and 1201.C, permit election campaign signs on private property if erected not more than 45 days prior to an election and removed within seven days following the election.  Title 51 of the Building Codes, Section 3107.18, says that no sign shall be permitted in the right-of-way of a street under any circumstances, except as provided in Section 3107.13.4.  In addition, Title 27, Chapter 13 allows for the issuance of a citation for placing signs in the rights-of-way.

Any sign placed outside of a fence along an arterial street will be considered to be on public right-of-way and will be removed.  This includes areas along Riverside Parkway and 81st Street South and Delaware where the fences are set back from the street.  If you have any questions or need the "Signs of the Times" brochure, contact Mark Hogan at 591-4069.

Signs removed by code officials will be marked with a dot of orange spray paint in the corner.  These signs may be retrieved by an authorized representative of your campaign from the sign pile at 4122 E Mohawk Blvd. each Wednesday from 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.  Your campaign will be responsible for faxing a list of authorized names to the City of Tulsa at 918-699-3012.  You may only retrieve your signs.

Any sign found in the right-of-way that has been previously marked will be destroyed.

Sincerely,
Jack L. Page, P.E.
Development Services Director

JLP/bg

cc:  Charles Hardt, Mark Hogan, Monica Hamilton

Wouldn't the city removing campaign signs from private property be considered suppression of an individual's freedom of speech?

Does Jack Page usually issue a letter like this on a Sunday?

How weird.

Dropping my pants and mooning the morning traffic in a picture window facing Riverside drive is free speech on private property. You okay with that?

No. These is a standard letter sent on a regular schedule to all candidates. Not weird at all.

Put your signs twelve feet from the curb and you won't violate the law.

So I heard from a friend that the above letter from Jack Page is standard issue to all candidates for city office.

As to the guy who wants to drop his pants in his front window.....while not exactly an expression of speech, I suppose in the confines of his own house that is his own business.

I think you missed the point a wee bit.

They aren't proposing that.  Read it again.  They are worried about public property.  And yes, the grass between the sidewalk and street is theirs, but yes, you still have to mow it.  We go through this kabuki dance on these forums every election. :P

Can't we just revive the Tusla Sign Nazi/Girzzle4D8/Paul Tay sign threads from a few years ago?

1) By law, signs can not be placed on public property.  This is for aesthetics, safety, and fairness (NOT a forum for speech, if they allowed campaign signs they have to allow other signs).  The removal tactic and policy of the city is very fair IMHO.

2) HOWEVER, I think the public right of way issue in my front yard is crap.  I understand that the City, utility company, road crew, and the neighbors dog can all crap (literally or figuratively) on that part of my property.  But it is still widely regarded as my property and is under my domain and control.

Placing a sign 5' from the curb will not be a safety issue and will not be mistaken for creating a public forum.  Clearly that sign represents my opinion placed in my front yard.  I think they are within their rights by enforcing the ordinance this way, but it is still annoying to me.

3) Campaign managers:   please get the signs that sit up higher, 3+ feet if you will.  They are more visible, and when placed illegally make excellent choices to remove for the public well being and recycle as pistol targets.

Sounds like great fodder for a lawsuit when somebody places a sign on their property outside of the right of way and their fence line and the city removes it.

If an employee was estimating the property line and estimated wrongly, that's one thing. When the city's has a written policy of removing signs on a person's property that are not in the city's right of way, that's a horse of a different color.

Make MY Day.

Actually, you own the property to the middle of the street, but the city holds a right of way from the middle of the street to a certain distance from the curb. That's why the city can hold that you have to mow the grass or fix the sidewalk but can't place/build anything.

I should have written "right of way line."

I have no problem with the city pulling signs out of the right of way--I don't like them myself.  But I don't like the inconsistencies--and therefore the likely lawsuits.  How many real estate signs (house for sale) are sitting in the right of way?  How many garage sale signs?  Does the city routinely remove those?  If you are going to enforce the rule for political speech, but not commercial, you have a real problem on your hands.  If the city wants to pull all of those political signs out of the right of way, fine.  But when are they going to start pulling up the McGraw Davisson signs sitting by the curb?  I could probably count 20 illegal real estate signs in a couple of miles.

27 TRO 2107 (http://cityoftulsa.org/media/17830/Title27_000.pdf):

SECTION 2107. REMOVAL OF REAL ESTATE SIGNS
It shall be an offense for any person to take, carry away or remove any sign posted on property, which sign is designed to be used by real estate brokers in and for the sale or rental of real property, without permission from the owner or the real estate broker whose name appears on the sign.

SECTION 2109. PENALTY
Unless otherwise provided for in this chapter, any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of an offense and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not more than TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00), excluding costs, fees and assessments.

I believe that that ordinance refers to real estate signs that are posted on private property, not in the right of way.  My point was that real estate signs are posted in the right of way all of the time, without consequences.  Political speech cannot be more restricted than commercial speech.  If you allow commercial speech in the right of way (i.e., real estate signs), you cannot prohibit political speech without violating the first amendment.  It is my understanding that no signs--commercial or political--are allowed in the right of way, which is a content-neutral (and therefore appropriate) rule.  But it isn't enforced consistently, which makes it questionable.  Unless the city starts pulling up real estate signs, pulling up political signs could result in a lawsuit.

pmcalk is correct.

If the policy is to explicitly allow commercial speech for one group of people on easements, right of ways, and other city controlled property but to forbid other forms of speech; there could be a problem.   

Also, I'd be interested to see if there is a definition of "real estate broker."  If I own a rent home can I do so, or must I have some other qualification?  And if so, why does what criteria may exist enable a person special privileges to city controlled property?

Are not election laws usually different?

Can there not be special rules on limiting signage, contributions, even who can hold office?

There is a difference between laws that govern the qualification to hold office and laws that deal with the First Amendment.  The Constitution guarentees your right to free speech; it does not guarentee your right to run for office.  Yes, you can regulate signage, but it must be content-neutral.  If the government allows speech in a location, it must allow all speech (except perhaps obscene material).  Again, you can ban all signs in the right of way, since that is content-neutral.  But you cannot ban political (protected) speech, while allowing commercial (unprotected) speech.

Contribution limitations are always suspect, since the Supreme Court has said that money is the same as speech.  Of course, we currently have limits, but the McCain-Feingold is to be reconsidered by the Supreme Court this fall.  We will see what happens.

51 TRO 3107.5.3.2 (http://cityoftulsa.org/media/17932/TITLE51.pdf)

Sale or Rent-Added. No permit shall be required for ground signs erected to announce the sale or rent of property, provided that such signs are not more than twenty-five (25) square feet in area.

Again, that deals with signs on private property, not right of way.  3107.4: 
From 42, section 1221(C)(14):
You can put a real estate sign on private property, and leave it for as long as you want (which probably means that the time restriction on political signs violates the First Amendment).  But you cannot put it in the right-of-way.  People do anyway.

Complaint Desk: http://cityoftulsa.org/reporting/advertising-sign-violations.aspx

The City of Tulsa is recruiting volunteers to help rid areas of illegal signs.

A training session for the first 12 volunteers is scheduled August 21 at City Hall and the registration deadline is August 14.

Illegal signs litter the rights-of-way along city streets. The City of Tulsa is seeking volunteers to help with regular removal of such signs. Volunteers will receive classroom instruction and then go to the field with professional sign and site inspectors.

The Tulsa Beautification Foundation and Quik Trip Corp. are providing refreshments and food for the training session.

This is the latest step in the City's ongoing efforts to control illegal signage in rights-of-way along Tulsa streets.

The City's Inspection Services section has added a Sign and Site Administration program through the aid of a grant from the Tulsa Beautification Foundation. Additional assistance is needed to control illegal signs in Tulsa's nearly 200 square miles of land.

Volunteers are expected to:

    * Complete the volunteer training course
    * Sign liability release forms
    * Sign an oath to adhere to City ordinances, rules and procedures
    * Have a valid driver's license
    * Commit to a land area and number of daytime hours for working
    * Submit to a background check.

Volunteers will be assigned to specific areas.

Apply here:  http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/30435/sign_volunt_application.pdf

So the Sign Gestapo want a dirty dozen sign removers to help disenfranchise citizens of Tulsa during this election cycle.

And the suspect timing:  A few weeks before the City of Tulsa Primary Election. 

How HANDY!

What else is new here in the Banana Republic of Tulsa?

Finding volunteers to help enforce the law? THAT'S CRAZY!1!!

Remember, it is all Kaiser's fault...

They could spend 12 hours per day pulling illegally placed Realtor For Sale Signs out of the city easement.

Enforce the 12' city easement from curbline on the Realtors, too.

And, the FISBO signs, too.

And, For Rent or Lease signs.

Garage Sale, signs.

Estate Sale, signs.

Signs, signs, everywhere a sign. 

Except, if you're not Bartlett, Jr. or Adledson, the Sign Gestapo is going to confiscate your campaign signs, wherever and whenever they can get their sticky mitts on them....

P.S.  and, drive around with them tossed into the back of a City Truck until after the Primary, so you can't timely reclaim them as promised....

Welcome to the GREAT American Democracy HARD At Work!  If ya don't like it, LEAVE.  AND, don't let da damn door hit ya where da sun don't shine.   ;D

I've spotted a Bartlett, Jr. campaign sign ONE FOOT from the Curb Line. 
And, it's BIG sign.

Am I deputized to confiscate the sign on behalf of the Sign Gestapo?

Do I get a badge?

Go git 'em, big boy!  Kick 'em ALL down, DAMMIT.  And, don't forget to take the pix for the rest of us to enjoy!  Beat 'em in da belly.  Stick it in their smelly!

You can get a gun with ONE bullet that you have to keep in your pocket.

I am confused again as not sure who we are electing.  I thought the election was for representatives of city districts who sat on the council.   There is the perpetual bureaucracy in the glass tower that has assumes the unauthorized authority of being the master over the needs of all the voters to be informed.   Is this called democracy?  I remember a fellow name Quinn who took a chain saw and removed a 4x8 political sign from a Tulsa City Park that was allowed by the city masters to be installed. 

Kaiser's house is on 31st and he has a Phil Lakin sign about 6' from the curb.

ACHTUNG, Sign GESTAPO!

Campaign Sign reported in Violation of City Ordinance, at residence of Herrn. Geo. Kaiser, Direktor of Bank of Kaiser.

Schedule panzer attack at dawn on offending sign.

And, bring the offender to the Kommandanteur. 

We have some questions for Herr Kaiser......

Like, WHY does Herr Kaiser have a Phil Lakin Campaign sign in his yard, when said residence on 31st Street is NOT located within City Council District 8??

Herr Lakin is running against Herr Hauptmann Christiansen, is he not??

BFD.  Mr. Kaiser can put a Nancy Pelosi sign in his front yard if he so wishes.

Much more important, who is Ken Busby supporting these days????????  bwaaahhhaaahhh!!!

True, Kaiser only has ONE sign, not TWO.

Kaiser supporting Lakin is no suprise to anyone.

I'll just bet Herr. Kaiser justs LOVES everyone knowing which house on 31st has the GIANT Lakin for City Councilor sign,  is in HIS YARD.

Oh, THAT's where George Kaiser lives! 

Wonder if he has curbside or backyard trash collection?

He sends you his thanks.....

 :D

Something tells me FB has been riding back and forth past Mr. Kaiser's house on his tri-cycle all day now.

ALMOST all day.............

Illegal campaign sign alert:  71/81/91/Riverside; 91/Sheridan.  Go kick 'em down, Sign Nazis!

Medlock's are all over Memorial, right next to the curb.

Harvard too.  Man, even inanimate Medlock bugs.