Campaign Sign Policy and Process

[cannon_fodder]

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?

[shadows]

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.

[sgrizzle]

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.

[shadows]

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.

[sgrizzle]

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.

[Red Arrow]

I assume you no got an airplane.

That should be obvious.  He had enough money to have campaign signs printed.

[sgrizzle]

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.

[Bledsoe]

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.

[shadows]

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.

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.

[rwarn17588]

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.

[Bledsoe]

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. "

[shadows]

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.