Sign Bylaw

[fluffy]

It's refreshing to have the various campaigns underway and not seeing forests of candidates' signs erupting along roadways around town as they did during the last municipal election. I wonder if it was just that the candidates in that election were unaware that our local bylaws prohibit the placing of political signs on public property. When you get right down to it the placing of signs in places that don't require permission from the owner/tenant is quite meaningless, signifying nothing other than the candidate's ability to pay for the signs. The deeper the pockets, the greater the number of signs, and the greater the level of name recognition among voters. In other words, money buys votes. Not something worth facilitating in my mind. I'm hoping the trend to actually abide by the sign bylaw continues, as it says a lot for the candidates' respect for the law and whether or not they are deserving of voter support.

[3+141592]

Agree - there was a bit of an effort however, there are (were?) signs at:
the Wine Info Center,
The Leir House,
Dartmouth and Warren (old SPCA site).

Regrettable...

[rustled]

I noticed signs on McLaren Park (alongside Duncan) yesterday.

Fluffy, you posted the City of Penticton and RDOS bylaws around election signage in another thread. Would you be so kind as to re-post it here? (I don't want to misquote you, or take credit for your research.)

[fluffy]

Here's a link where you can get it right from the source, the sign bylaw is at the top of the list under "s", the pertinent part is Division Six, Section 2.


http://www.penticton.ca/EN/main/city/bylaws.html

[rustled]

Thanks, Fluffy. So, according to C.O.P. bylaws (italics are mine):

Political Signs erected in conjunction with Federal, Provincial or Municipal Elections and/or referendums are permitted in accordance with the appropriate legislation provided such signs are removed not more than fourteen days after the elections date. Such signs are not permitted on public property and such signs shall not be located on private property where they may prove a traffic hazard.

I was surprised that Cannings, who's well known for his concern for the environment, has decided to put up so much signage. I agree that signs on private property indicate support, while signs on public property merely indicate a budget.

What a shame it's gotten so out of hand.

[XT225]

One of the reasons that I would like to see signs ONLY posted on private property is that then you can tell that the candidates actually had to work to get permission. Its a bit of a gamble for ANY business owner to allow election signs for ONE particular candidate (as they could lose business because of it). I do notice that the Lakeside Resort has taken a different approach. I believe that the owner is not a huge fan of Ashtons; but he is likely not willing to take a chance by only allowing his favorite (whoever that might be) to place signange on his property, so there are three parties with signs up now at that location; however mainly the Cannings and Ashton signs are predominant. A good bit of business sense on the owners part.

Getting back to the signs on Public Land, I find it disgraceful and unnecessary. These candidates all know the rule (bylaw 92-22) but are hoping that the officials look the other way. Someone suggested that you must go and fill out a complaint form at City Hall in order for the Bylaw Dept to act; this is insane. That's like saying that we have a "no skateboarding bylaw" in the downtown area on the sidewalks (which IS the case) but that bylaw officers will ignore violators unless they have written complaints. Give me a break!

The candidates read these forums and so do city officials. I think we have a chance to clean up this mess before its gets out of hand. Come on Candidates and Bylaw Dept - get your acts together. Play by the rules!

[fluffy]

One of the reasons that I would like to see signs ONLY posted on private property is that then you can tell that the candidates actually had to work to get permission.

That's the heart of it for me, signs on public property is empty politics. I can see the reasoning from the candidate's view. We do have a significant number of voters who don't really take the time to learn about the various issues and ideologies at play in an election, and the name recognition gained by planting your name all over town may garner a significant number of votes from those people. But as you say, the practice is cheap and superficial, it carries no promise. A sign on private property holds meaning, it indicates that some level of interaction between the candidate and the voter has taken place and that the voter is willing to show open support. It shows that the candidate is willing to take those extra steps into a one-on-one relationship with his/her supporters. One sign like that is worth a hundred of the "anonymous" variety.

The legal aspect says a lot too. Yes, I believe that the candidates are aware of the by-law and are choosing in their own mind to ignore that law. It makes me wonder what other "little" laws that they would be comfortable ignoring.

This issue might seem trivial on the surface, but there is a deeper insight into the minds of the candidates available here. A closer look at the resume of these people asking us to hire them for a pretty decent job.

[XT225]

I'm certain that if the signage isn't removed from City Property, Fluffy, that it WILL become a campaign issue and I will be talking directly to Sean Upshaw, the Conservative Candidate. He stated that he may not even put up signs as he didn't want t add to the pollution. He could nail every other candidate big time in the upcoming forum with their breaking the ignoring the bylaw. I would not normally vote for the Conservatives but I'm NOT impressed with the way this is going, so I'm on the fence. The first candidate who removes his signs and goes public, admitting that he was wrong, stands to gain considerable brownie points. I'm looking forward to hearing Sean Upshaw speak.

[fluffy]

IMPORTANT UPDATE:

I spoke with the Bylaw Enforcement office this morning and was informed that the Sign Bylaw as it appears on the city website is not up to date. An exception to allow for the placement of campaign signs on city boulevards and such was added in 2009 so contrary to all my ranting and raving, the practice is not illegal. The philosophical issues remain, but I suspect those will be important to few. I recognize that there is a need on the candidates' part to get their names out and reach voters who may not otherwise be aware of their candidacy.

[XT225]

IMPORTANT UPDATE:

I spoke with the Bylaw Enforcement office this morning and was informed that the Sign Bylaw as it appears on the city website is not up to date. An exception to allow for the placement of campaign signs on city boulevards and such was added in 2009 so contrary to all my ranting and raving, the practice is not illegal. The philosophical issues remain, but I suspect those will be important to few. I recognize that there is a need on the candidates' part to get their names out and reach voters who may not otherwise be aware of their candidacy.

Good digging there Fluffy. If that's true (would be nice to see it in print on the city website somewhere; surely it must be documented) then we don't want the candidates to see these posts...or we could have a blitz on sign postings...lol Think there are plenty out there now to do the job. I did notice that the contact list for city bylaw is way out of date; shows the first officer (Rod Davidson) who quit the city months ago and moved to the coast I believe. Maybe they need to hire more staff to keep things running down there? LOL ps: it would've been nice for someone from the city to either come on here and inform folks what the ruling is, or put an ad in the media. Not too transparent these days, our city hall.

[fluffy]

When I spoke with bylaw it was mentioned that a media release is in the works, and that all the candidates had been informed what the rules actually are. That doesn't' change my opinion that it's a shallow practice, but in all fairness it's an effective method for reaching shallow voters. (tongue firmly in cheek)

[XT225]

When I spoke with bylaw it was mentioned that a media release is in the works, and that all the candidates had been informed what the rules actually are. That doesn't' change my opinion that it's a shallow practice, but in all fairness it's an effective method for reaching shallow voters. (tongue firmly in cheek)

Great, Fluffy. Glad they are finally putting out a media release; bout time. Proves that they likely DO read these forums, too. I agree that sign pollution is a shallow practice. A few here and there are just as good. Its gutsy for a business to allow ONE partys sign only; it could lose them business but its there call. I already have a couple businesses on my list of whom I will no longer patrionize. That's Democracy in its true form; freedom of choice. Thanks again, Fluffy.

[Anonymous123]

IMPORTANT UPDATE:

I spoke with the Bylaw Enforcement office this morning and was informed that the Sign Bylaw as it appears on the city website is not up to date. An exception to allow for the placement of campaign signs on city boulevards and such was added in 2009 so contrary to all my ranting and raving, the practice is not illegal. The philosophical issues remain, but I suspect those will be important to few. I recognize that there is a need on the candidates' part to get their names out and reach voters who may not otherwise be aware of their candidacy.

I wonder who or what drove them to amend the bylaw? And who is in charge of the website? Three years of no maintenance?

[fluffy]

I wonder who or what drove them to amend the bylaw?

2008, the year before the bylaw was changed, was an election year. It's entirely possible that this became an issue during that election and that precipitated the change.

[XT225]

Where is this media release re an ammendment to the bylaw a few years back? Sure taking their time. Typical City "dilly-dallying". Will the real truth please stand up!

Ho hum....still waiting. So much for Transparency and Accountability in this city.