Left In Lowell

Visual Pollution or Political Speech

20 Responses to “Visual Pollution or Political Speech”

1. The Prince of Darkness Says:
   July 22nd, 2007 at 6:27 pm

   Do you really think the Inspection Department is going to police the city for these signs? Most of these hacks got their jobs because they held these signs at one time or another. Do you expect these inspectors to tell their “Godfather/mother” to take their signs down or face a penalty? Wishful thinking.

2. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   July 22nd, 2007 at 9:16 pm

   I was under the impression that political signs were limited to a certain number of days prior to the prelimiary/primary election?

   I do recall that David St. Hillare (building inspector) used to respond to complaints about signs being on public property. He’d pick them up and remove them. Were the candidates penalized? I don’t know.

   There was also a time in which candidates could drap banners across Merrimack St.!

   I recall both George Anthes and Ed Kennedy drapped banners from the building at Bridge and Merrimack to the Sun building on the other side! Then it was declared illegal.

   So, allow them or not. I vote for not! I don’t consider it “free speech”.

3. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   July 22nd, 2007 at 9:24 pm

   “For those self-styled libertarians who will accuse me of trying to stifle free speech, how would you like it if I send the 20 City Council candidates to your house at midnight, with a megaphone and they can shout all day and all night to you? That is how I feel as I drive through Lowell.”

   When I was a kid, this is exactly what used to happen!!! Not at midnight but cars with candidates banners and megaphones on top used to drive through our neighborhood with someone on the mic telling us how good the candidate (usually the guy driving the car) was and how bad the CM was. Back then most challengers ran against the CM because they couldn’t run against anyone else.

   At some point the city banned those cars with megaphones, and banned the banners across Merrimack St.

   So….?

4. Josh Says:
   July 22nd, 2007 at 10:12 pm

   1.) You say “My city” like you own it. If these signs are on private property then its not yours and the owners of that property can decide if they want to put up a sign.

   2.) I don’t think you can compare someone knocking on your door at midnight (trespass) or someone blasting a megaphone (nuisance) to someone putting up an ugly sign.

   3.) The fact that these signs are temporary is even more reason NOT to regulate them. They’ll be gone after the election and will have no effect on the value of the properties nearby.

   If you want to take this to it’s logical conclusion then why don’t we regulate ugly and unfashionable people too? I mean, I don’t particularly enjoy looking at them and they’re everywhere I go. I’ll write up the ordinance about women wearing Ugg boots with a skirt or guys who let their guts hang out of the bottom of their shirts. This way, we won’t offend your delicate eyes.

5. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   July 23rd, 2007 at 12:04 am

   Hi Josh
   So, If I, as a business owner, wanted to put up “temporary” signs promoting my business in various places throughout the city on private property then I wouldn’t be subjected to any city sign ordinance?

   I believe there is an city ordinance regulating political signs.

   Is that ordinance constitutional? I don’t know.

   If it is not then watch for Rita signs on every telephone pole in the city! (If the electric company objects watch for Rita to push for underground utilities!!!)

6. The Prince of Darkness Says:
   July 23rd, 2007 at 7:14 am

   Let’s celebrate democracy by following the laws. The question remains, who is going to enforce it? Elliott et al. know that there’s no teeth in this one. Cops won’t, they don’t even issue parking tickets anymore. That’s done by the parking Nazis. Inspectional Services? Gimme a break. If we had enforcement of all these little ordinances in Lowell, our taxes would go DOWN.

7. Lynne Says:
   July 23rd, 2007 at 7:18 am

   Noise or air pollution is affecting the public commons and can be regulated. There is such a thing as sight pollution as well, and I’d say the proliferation of these signs all over the city months before the election might well qualify.

   The root of this problem, is, however, fairness. Some are obeying the law. Others (GOB’ers Kazanjian and McMahon in particular, but others as well) are not, and are gaining unfair advantage in name recognition for it.

   So, as such, if there is a law, I want it to be applied across the board. Also, it’s not a violation of the Constitution for a town to design that business signs in, say, a historic downtown should adhere to the look that the town wants to portray for that area. You would not see a Supreme Court strike such laws down. This is no different in scope or substance. As long as the law is applied fairly, that is.

8. EaBo Clipper Says:
   July 23rd, 2007 at 8:02 am

   The problem is the “law” is unconstitutional Lynne. The SCOTUS has made a clear distinction between commercial signage and political signage. Political signs are expressly different in scope or substance.

   Here is more information on that: http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_activities/policy_papers/sign_ordinances.pdf

   Does it really upset you to see political signs in business windows. I’m being serious here, because it never has upset me at all. You guys wouldn’t last a day in Boston. There are no signage laws, and or they are not enforced. I think it shows a healthy level of democracy to see political signs everywhere.

9. Mr. Lynne Says:
   July 23rd, 2007 at 8:23 am

   I’m fine with it either way but everyone should be playing by the same rules.

10. Mike Combs Says:
    July 23rd, 2007 at 9:47 am

    Political free speech is different than commercial speech. A town can certainly regulate business signs to conform to anything they’d like. But political signs are a different matter.

    I’d be in favor of limiting the size for a particular candidate or issue, but if there are 5 races, why shouldn’t I be able to put 5 signs up for my 5 picks?

    If we want people to participate in politics, it starts with people talking about politics.

11. Fran McDougall Says:
    July 23rd, 2007 at 10:15 am

    I have been known as the “Queen of Visibiliy” because I have been, in the past, in charge of lawn signs and poll signs for candidates in previous campaigns. In Chelmsford, the 21st best place to live in the
    US of A, there is an unwritten bylaw concerning when , where, and how these signs can be placed. It has for the most part been observed in our community. The only time it isn’t, it’s usually by unknowing apolitical types who have been conned into putting up signs by outside campaigns, ie. Kerry Healy’s group is a case in point. Candidates who abide by these understandings are usually held in a higher esteem. In the posts I have been reading I seem to hear almost a threatening sense of “How dare you tell me what I can and cannot do!!” Those are the same thoughts that go through the heads of people who choose to paint their house purple with black polka dots surrounded by chainlink fences with 45 cats in residence. Yes, they have the right to do that and yes the neighbors do need to tolerate it. I hope that maybe there would be a kinder gentler group of visibility “Royalty” in all the current campaigns who care more about the perception of civility than about how many red, blue, green or purple cardboard can be seen in the district. Just a thought.
    Sign sitings on my travels, Tsongas on Andover St. in Lowell, Finegold in my travels in Andover on lawns.

12. Kami Says:
    July 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 am

    From my understanding when the city recently revamped the zoning code the temporary sign regulations were not included. So there are actually no regulations in place. Previously, you could put signs up a certain number of days prior to the election. It may have been 21 but I’m not positive. The problem with the past ordinance was the date to erect signs always fell on a weekday. Candidates put them up the weekend before because its difficult to get volunteers to assist in putting up signs on the weekend never mind a weekday.

    There needs to be some type of rules in place. We can’t have signs popping up in April for a November election. It just looks trashy. Other communities have rules. Why can’t we have rules that everyone has to follow. Why should some candidates get an advantage over others who are new and are trying to navigate around unchartered waters. It has nothing to do with free speech and all to do about fairness.

13. Mimi Says:
    July 23rd, 2007 at 10:56 am

    Mike:

    You have every right to have 5 signs on your property as I do on mine, my car since I do not have a yard. If I had a yard or a business, I would put up a sign also; I encourage all of my neighbors to participate in the process and political signs are one of the ways. That is not what I am talking about.

    There is something different going on here. Take a drive down Chelmsford Street in Lowell and let me know what you think? Let’s take an extreme case, if a prominent Lowell landlord were to run for office and wallpaper the outside of every building he or she owns, would that translate into encouraging people into “talking about politics?”

    I do not know if there is the political will in Lowell to discuss this issue right now; maybe next Spring when things have calmed down; also the process to make a change in the Zoning law is lengthy, as it should be.

14. EaBo Clipper Says:
    July 23rd, 2007 at 11:28 am

    Kami,

    You can put up signs in April for a November Election. It’s called the First amendment. There cannot be rules, because those rules have been struck down by the SCOTUS.

15. Jason Says:
    July 23rd, 2007 at 3:18 pm

    Call me a cynic, I can’t help but wonder if it’s not the particular names on the signs in question that is really bothering some of you.

    I noticed there were a lot of signs, it doesn’t bother me a bit. We have plenty of blight to look at around this city, the signs aren’t even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to visual aesthetics.

16. Mike Combs Says:
    July 23rd, 2007 at 4:21 pm

    I haven’t driven through Lowell, but I’ll take a look. So my comments might be off-base here.

    (Hi Fran!) In Chelmsford, it’s not an unwritten law, it’s an actual law. Signs can go up 2 weeks before, and must come down 1 week after an election. I think that’s unconstitutional… If I lived on a street with traffic, I think I’d have had a sign up about Iraq all this time. If they reduce the time we’re at war, it would reduce the time I had my sign up.

    Political signs in yards, of the usual size, wouldn’t bother me if they were up longer. They might bother my neighbors, but hopefully not as much as a purple house.

    A business, even a sole proprietorship, should be subject to the same. No walls plastered with signs, no gigantic billboards. Businesses don’t get the same kind of free speech that individuals do.

    I’m less certain about restrictions on the sizes of signs in individual yards. Maybe if they maxed out at 2-3 times the size of the typical political yard sign.

    My imagined Iraq war cost odometer would probably be twice as big as a typical yard sign. The issue is bigger, the sign should be bigger.

    At some point, this is self-regulating. Candidates ask supporters to follow their community norms, because they don’t want to turn off potential voters.

    Kami, why are political signs in April trashy, but those bathtub Madonna things all year round are okay? I think political signs in neighborhood yards are beautiful. They tell me the neighbors are involved in democracy and there’s nothing prettier than that. Wear your religion and political party on your sleeve.

17. Kami Says:
    July 24th, 2007 at 1:29 pm

    Mike
    The signs become worn, tattered, and weathered in a relatively short period of time. To have them up in April with rain etc any expectation that they will last until November in unrealistic. Do we really believe all of the various campaigns will have the manpower to maintain them for that long? I’ve seen signs up for LONG after elections are over. In particular if a candidate loses. At that point some, not all, don’t care and just leave them there for someone else to deal with.

    EaBo Clipper
    Based upon your statement I would have to conclude that you are in favor of having signs erected for up to six years for a Senatorial race? That seems a bit absurd. Free speech or no free speech that’s just pushing just for the sake of it. Not to really excerise your right to free speech. That to me doesn’t equal free speech. It’s just stretching the meaning to a point where it means nothing. Free speech may grant me the right to put a 50 foot political sign in my card but is it fair and reasonable to my neighbors? Is it really free speech or just taking a right and giving someone a white wash (think face in snow) with it? When did respect and reasonableness get surgically removed from free speech.

18. EaBo Clipper Says:
    July 24th, 2007 at 2:23 pm

    Kami - It’s what the SCOTUS said. I didn’t say it SCOTUS said it. However towns can “reasonably” limit the size of signs. I would guess 8 footers would be a reasonable limit, but i dont think a 3 x 5 sign would be.

    You got a beef. Call John Roberts et al.

19. Jay Booth Says:
    July 24th, 2007 at 2:54 pm

    I think 30 days before the election is pretty reasonable.

    And this is just me, but I definitely think residences should have more freedom to display signs than businesses. Not sure where I’d draw the lines but I definitely fall that way.

20. Josh Says:
    July 24th, 2007 at 6:37 pm

    Jay, why should the same man who owns a house and a business be able to display a sign in one piece of his propery and not the other?

Leave a Reply