I mentioned it in another post but "sign enforcement" and political sign policies are a mess. There are rules aganst maximum size (I tried to get one in my trunk and it wouldn't go, I would think that should be oversized) as well as location (not in median or within 12.5" from the curb) and date (not more than 45 days before and 7 days after election)
Problem A: Following the rules guarantees you will lose. Show me a candidate who has won an election and I'll show you their signs placed against policy.
Problem B: Sign cleanup seems rather random. During the campaign in my district Memorial (high traffic) was never touched but Sheridan and Yale were.
Problem C: If your signs are picked up you are asked to come get them. However there is only a 6 hour window per week in which to do this and you're supposed to magically find your property in here:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2516/3906289079_82182209e7.jpg)
Problem D: It is just as against the rules for individuals to pick up other's signs, yet I watched the occupants of this vehicle doing it as well as many others.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2612/3907074452_40373975a9.jpg)
Problem E: There is no real punishment for violation
Problem F: Problems B, C, D & E provide an advantage to well funded campaigns who can easily replenish signs.
So my thoughts:
1. Create a "sign grace period" from two weeks before election to a few days after
2. Apply AND ENFORCE standards during that grace period
a. no signs less than 3 feet apart
b. no signs blocking mowing or traffic visibility
c. no sign-gasms (10, 20, 30 signs in a cluster)
d. no removing or tampering of other's signs
e. signs must identify whose campaign they are for (for those who saw the "anti-christiansen" signs)
f. signs from a 3rd party must clearly identify the 3rd party (so and so endorses so and so)
3. Signs picked up by the city are forfeited.
4. Violations of rules are punished on a graduate scale. (first violation free. repeated violations $10, $20, $50, etc)
5. Promote efficiencies like the Grizzle-Lakin co-op
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2555/3907068548_e651f59900.jpg)
Nobody has any opinions?
I get tired of the sign litter during campaigns, I wish their use was restricted purely to residential lots.
Let me know if you have collected any of the fire fighter signs. They would make great target back-stops for cannon_fodder and I
Quote from: sgrizzle on September 10, 2009, 02:31:33 PM
Nobody has any opinions?
My opinion is that the city of tulsa is far too lax about allowing signs not only in the right of way but in medians and other places they shouldn't be. Hundreds of them every election season. Heck, on Memorial there are hundreds of them in the median all year round.
I wish it were legal to fine each campaign a hundred votes for every illegally placed sign. That might get some attention from the campaigns and stop the littering.
My ideal policy:
No sign should be placed in the ground, instead there has to be a human holding every sign. One human can hold two signs if feasible. Sign holders may also wear a tshirt and hat bearing the name of the candidate as a third sign. No sign holder can stand within a 2 mile radius of another sign holder from the same campaign. Two competing sign holders from different campaigns that wind up in a fight(verbal) shall be thrown in jail for up to 18 hours. Concealed weapon permits shall not apply to sign holders wearing costumes.
I think you're absolutely right Grizzle. There needs to be some changes made for signage strictly for election events. I think providing more strict and enforced policy guidlines puts everyone on the same page. It also lets Tulsa at large know when to expect to see signage and when they need to come down. The other thing I would like to see is the candidate and their staff responsible for the take down of signage for their own campaign...year after year I see signage sit there for weeks sometimes. If they wanted it up, they should want it down and need to ensure it does come down and without labor cost to the City. I also think there should be some accountability on the parts of the campaigns if signs are placed by their supporters in medians or obstructing views of traffic, etc. All this can be accomplished with short training forums at a campaign headquarters...or your living room if you go the low cost route.
Unfortunately, candidates still choose to rely on signage (which does have great visibilty I'll admit) for name recognition but I would have loved to have seen a candidate take the necessary time to hit each district (for Mayoral consideration) or their own district for more 'town hall' style meetings with potential constituents. This give those that are not strict party followers the opporuntiy to meet face to face, ask unfettered and honest questions and really get a feel for the candidate. Not one of those I supported did anything remotely like that and the feedback I get is a) I dont really know who they are b) all the questions are staged anyway c) it was a party backed event and I'm not comfortable there, etc etc
I think some candidates could have made huge strides to overcome media opinions, past observations, etc. There just seems to be more of a disconnect with the average voter year after year...that sad.
Perhaps if you have any funds left over, offer to purchase the union signage like Conan suggested and invite your supporters to an oklahoma styled backwoods shootin contest using them a the targets...I really like Conan's idea
Grizzle...was that picture of the Lakin Grizzle Co-op meant to be a thought provoking piece on the disparagy in campaign funding too? Thought it was brilliant, Four Lakin signs to every one of Grizzles...of course there was the whole 46% to 3%...sorry, better luck next time though!
Quote from: Conan71 on September 10, 2009, 02:40:02 PM
I get tired of the sign litter during campaigns, I wish their use was restricted purely to residential lots.
Let me know if you have collected any of the fire fighter signs. They would make great target back-stops for cannon_fodder and I
I was thinking the same thing, until my thought process reminded me that I can't afford ammo anymore (haven't been shooting in over a year).
Sorry, but you can't have a 'free speech grace period' of three weeks, which is what this boils down to.
Allowing campaign signs only creates a problem.
Allowing all signs only during three weeks creates a problem.
You either always allow all signs (perhaps with restriction on size) or you never allow all signs.
I agree this city has never had the courage to enforce many of our zoning laws, with road signs being one of them.
And fines of $10 are WAY WAY too low.
Quote from: DowntownNow on September 10, 2009, 03:01:28 PM
Grizzle...was that picture of the Lakin Grizzle Co-op meant to be a thought provoking piece on the disparagy in campaign funding too? Thought it was brilliant, Four Lakin signs to every one of Grizzles...of course there was the whole 46% to 3%...sorry, better luck next time though!
Actually it's about 6 to 1. I suggested that while candidates were out picking up signs, they should pick up ALL the signs and then the candidates could swap later. Cuts the amount of roads needed to be covered by each candidate. Lakin went for it so that is why I have giant stacks of his signs (and he has a small stack of mine)
Great idea Grizzle...now thats the forward thinking, efficient kinda thought I'd have loved to see you put into the D8 seat...again, always next time but I'm sure others are now encouraged by you choosing to run this time. Congrats.
Scott makes some great suggestions. I thought I heard somewhere that Jenks allows campaign signs on city ROW during a certain period if your campaign pays a deposit and follows certain rules.
Had there been a runoff, Scott would have finished with far more votes from the many people who didn't like either of the other two candidates. But there was no runoff, and the voters who didn't like Lakin and Christiansen still felt strongly enough about defeating Mr. District 9 Money or Mr. Permanent Incumbent that they cast a tactical vote for the candidate they perceived was in the best position to stop their least favorite. Runoffs, especially instant runoff ballots, allow people to vote for their favorite while still helping to stop their least favorite.
Quote from: MichaelBates on September 10, 2009, 11:39:13 PM
instant runoff ballots, allow people to vote for their favorite while still helping to stop their least favorite.
I would love to see IRV here.
where is the sign nazi when you need him?
Quote from: ARGUS on September 22, 2009, 09:46:51 AM
where is the sign nazi when you need him?
He's Sofa King banned.
Quote from: ARGUS on September 22, 2009, 09:46:51 AM
where is the sign nazi when you need him?
True that though.
Is it illegal for a citizen to pick up litter on the public right of way?
It is not the amount of signs that elected a candidate but is amount the candidate has to purchase the first class advertisement. The signs are not directly associated with the winner of the contest but is controlled by the cost per vote they need to spend to prevail. It is not uncommon in Tulsa for the campaign expense to exceed over one half of the expected salary of the office. Eliminate the signage and ask the high dollar contributors (few) who they want to be in office. That will increase unemployment among sign printers but save the taxpayers money on cleanups.
Quote from: shadows on September 22, 2009, 05:09:57 PM
It is not the amount of signs that elected a candidate but is amount the candidate has to purchase the first class advertisement. The signs are not directly associated with the winner of the contest but is controlled by the cost per vote they need to spend to prevail. It is not uncommon in Tulsa for the campaign expense to exceed over one half of the expected salary of the office. Eliminate the signage and ask the high dollar contributors (few) who they want to be in office. That will increase unemployment among sign printers but save the taxpayers money on cleanups.
Half the salary? My competitors spent more than they would make in several YEARS.
Quote from: sgrizzle on September 22, 2009, 07:08:04 PM
Half the salary? My competitors spent more than they would make in several YEARS.
That would be known as ward politics and I was at the charter amendments meetings and when it was brought up and the people were assured that part-time representatives would eliminate the ward politics.
Seem odd as with the first elections for councilors there was very few citizens who would consider even taking the job. But now it seem that it is big time business that is controlled by the other big time businesses.
I assume you no got an airplane.
Quote from: shadows on September 22, 2009, 08:06:31 PM
That would be known as ward politics and I was at the charter amendments meetings and when it was brought up and the people were assured that part-time representatives would eliminate the ward politics.
Seem odd as with the first elections for councilors there was very few citizens who would consider even taking the job. But now it seem that it is big time business that is controlled by the other big time businesses.
I assume you no got an airplane.
I have one, it's only 5ft across and crashes alot though.
Quote from: shadows on September 22, 2009, 08:06:31 PM
I assume you no got an airplane.
That should be obvious. He had enough money to have campaign signs printed.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 22, 2009, 09:47:06 PM
That should be obvious. He had enough money to have campaign signs printed.
I never got a count of Bill's signs but I printed 250, Lakin printed 2,000 regular signs, 500 "Keep Unions Strong" signs, and I'm guessing around 50 giant signs. I just figured the amount you would need for every major intersection and a few between intersections throughout the district to be at 150-200 and planned for about another 50 for supporters, replacements, etc. That's why I was going for 250, even before I had donations in to know my budget.
The First Amendment and free speech concerns govern campaign political signs and other political signs like "Stop the Chop", "Stop the Box" and "Preserve Midtown.Com".
All these signs are certainly permitted on your residential property. IMO--this would also apply to other types of property like businesses. The government cannot restrict the time these signs can be posted--no only 45 days before and only 7 days after an election. This restriction is clearly unconstitutional so IMO Tulsa's campaign time limits are not valid. The number of signs probably is not valid either, although when you get into the dozens on your front lawn there may be some valid restrictions that might be able to be crafted based on health and safety issues.
The government certainly can totally ban these signs from its own property, including all COT right of way which generally is 12' from the curb, although this is not uniform throughout the City. For example I learned that some areas in mid-town have only 8' and 10' ROW because streets have been widened, but the City has not acquired the ROW--Lewis Ave. in the 2600 block for example only has a 8' City ROW.
The City government certainly can reasonably regulate the size of the signs and whether they are dangerous, obstruct traffic or cause some other health and safety concern. Therefor the City's size limit of 2' by 4' is valid and I have been successful in getting enforcement of super-size signs that started to proliferate in 2006. See: http://www.batesline.com/archives/2006/03/stava-signs-cit.html
But if you want to ban or significantly restrict non-commercial political signs (including campaign signs) on private property, free speech will not let the government do this. This most assuredly would also apply to religious speech.
For a very good over-view of the issue see the attached opinion from the city attorney of Missoula, MT.
QuoteBut if you want to ban or significantly restrict non-commercial political signs (including campaign signs) on private property, free speech will not let the government do this. This most assuredly would also apply to religious speech.
It is the rule of code enforcement that they control everything between the grass and sky on your private property. The first amendment does not apply in the country of Tulsa in the North American Continent. They have their own rules here that are enforceable.
Quote from: shadows on September 25, 2009, 01:55:35 PM
It is the rule of code enforcement that they control everything between the grass and sky on your private property. The first amendment does not apply in the country of Tulsa in the North American Continent. They have their own rules here that are enforceable.
Oh, please. Grow up.
Municipal rules against campaign signs, or any other sign for that matter, are in thousands of towns across America. Don't try that silly canard of intimating that Tulsa somehow is unique in trying to restrict this. You may disagree with it, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the right of cities to impose zoning ordinances.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on September 25, 2009, 02:02:57 PM
Oh, please. Grow up.
Municipal rules against campaign signs, or any other sign for that matter, are in thousands of towns across America. Don't try that silly canard of intimating that Tulsa somehow is unique in trying to restrict this. You may disagree with it, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the right of cities to impose zoning ordinances.
rw--Please look at the city attorney opinion attached in my original posting--the Supreme Court and almost all other courts have consistently ruled that a municipality CANNOT limit political or other expressive signs on a person's residential property, except for size and safety reasons. Tulsa's time limits are not valid and have never been enforced.
"The physical characteristics of political signs such as its maximum size, or its location so as not to block visibility of motorists on private property or banning political signs on public property are examples of acceptable political sign regulation. The United States Supreme Court in City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994) 512 U.S. 43, 114 S. Ct. 2038, 129 L. Ed 3d 36; 1994 U. S. Lexis 4448 unanimously indicated that residential “political, religious, or personal message” signs were permitted constitutional free speech rights pursuant to the First Amendment.
There are court cases that have held invalid local government restrictions attempting to limit the number of temporary political signs to two (2) or the time period when political signs are allowed to sixty (60) days. "
Quote from: rwarn17588 on September 25, 2009, 02:02:57 PM
Oh, please. Grow up.
Municipal rules against campaign signs, or any other sign for that matter, are in thousands of towns across America. Don't try that silly canard of intimating that Tulsa somehow is unique in trying to restrict this. You may disagree with it, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the right of cities to impose zoning ordinances.
It is not a matter as growing up as I have grown with it. Having seen the duplication of authority whereas the city has prevailed in all challenges in the courts with outsourced legal. Some may not remember one of many incident where the challenge of the rule of invasion of privacy did not prevail when a bottle of anti-freeze was sitting under an attached car port.
Code inspectors will elaborate on their right to trespass under the cloak public nuisance thus aborting the US constitutional requirements.