Signs of the Times

[Grizzle4D8]

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

[Limabean]

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.

[waterboy]

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?

[RecycleMichael]

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.

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.

[Limabean]

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.

[rwarn17588]

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.

[Chicken Little]

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

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.

[cannon_fodder]

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.

[nathanm]

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.

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.

[Grizzle4D8]

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.

[swake]

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.

[nathanm]

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."

[pmcalk]

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.

[Grizzle4D8]

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:

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.

[pmcalk]

27 TRO 2107:

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.