BANGOR, Maine — Though they did not take a formal position Tuesday night, members of a City Council committee agreed that the issue of campaign signs bears a closer look.
During particularly heated races and campaigns, the number and size of signs put up in some of the city’s highly traveled spots grows to the point that the signs hinder visibility at intersections, posing safety problems for motorists and pedestrians, according to some councilors.
As it stands, Bangor’s code of ordinances does not place limits on the size of political signs, City Clerk Patti Dubois noted in a memo to committee members.
The matter came before the City Council’s Government Operations Committee on Tuesday night at the request of Councilor Patricia Blanchette, who said she has no problem with political signs on private property but thought there ought to be some rules for those on city-owned land.
“It’s like a sign mushroom in some parts of the city,” she said, referring to the proliferation of campaign signs that pop up in the weeks leading up to Election Day. “It’s obnoxious, rude, to a lot of people.”
Blanchette said some of the signs put up before this year’s elections in November were as large as 4 feet by 16 feet, and some appeared to be placed in such a way that they blocked other candidates’ campaign signs.
“I’ve had that done to my signs,” she said.
Councilor Joseph Baldacci agreed that the proliferation of signs at many key city locations has gotten out of hand, “like an arms race.”
He said, however, that because campaign signs are a form of political speech, the matter should be approached as a First Amendment issue. His council colleagues did not disagree.
Councilors Charles Longo said signs provided candidates a way to stand out from the pack.
Councilor James Gallant said he didn’t think the city should limit the size of campaign signs on public property. He thought signs helped put the spotlight on lesser known candidates, such as political newcomers.
“For me, personally, I want the underdog to have a chance, always,” he said.
According to Dubois, the typical campaign lawn sign is 3 square feet. Upon checking with her counterparts in other Maine communities, she learned that size restrictions ranged from 8 square feet to 32 square feet. One municipality had a maximum height restriction of 3½ feet and many cities and towns require that signs not obstruct visibility at intersections.
Her recommendation to the committee was to consider a maximum size of 8 square feet and a 3½-foot maximum height.
Committee members agreed to revisit the issue in about a month. In the meantime, they asked City Solicitor Norman Heitmann to research state law regarding political signs and lay out the city’s options for regulating them.
Get rid of those monstrosities on Broadway…and how about the buffoons who put 50 or 60 signs up in a row…Get a grip people…you’re one step away from running for dog catcher…
Restrict them to 0″ x 0″. I understand advertising but hopefully people don’t base their votes on seeing a name on a sign.
Ah but many do. Very sad.
That whole troublesome Constitution thing might get in the way of your desire to usurp free speech with which you disagree.
Plan on running for office next term Todd? Haha
I thiNk restrict size of politicians’ iq or heart is more in line. That would limit the gene pool of those running 4 offices and in turn cull political signs at same time!
You want to restrict their heart? So you want to cause heart attacks? I’m confused.
Rather than restrict the size of the sign, let’s ban them altogether. Useless eyesores is all they are and, as Matt rightly noted, who the heck would be foolish enough to decide on who to vote for because they saw a sign?
You can’t do that that’s free speech
Bolognie. Restricting, or eliminating, the use of political signs does not mean they cannot tell the world about themselves or their platforms. There are myriad ways to do that.
We ban billboards!
On your free speech issue, what if I wanted to erect a 1000 sq ft sign on my property denouncing WalMart. I guarantee the town would make me take it down. We impose limits on certain activities. This is okay as long as we leave reasonable room for expression. Candidates could resort to running ads instead. Their messages would still get out and the landscape would not be littered with these very unattractive ads.
Political Signs on Federal Highways ARE outlawed,
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/23/title23sec1913-A.html
However, It appears to me as though one Particular Govenor and his Political Party pays NO attention to the Law!
http://www.pressherald.com/news/maine-LePage-business-sign-I95-welcome-turnpike-.html
Has a campaign sign ever changed your vote? Seriously!
Some people do. Its very sad but they do.
a 3 inch by 5 inch size would be perfect for any campaign sign.
I have never had my vote influenced by a sign, and can’t imagine who has. Eliminate them all, or have one designated area in each town or city where each candidate or faction can post one sign, all of the same size. It amazes me that a State that does not allow billborards allow all these signs, especially the ugly big sloppily painted ones.
Mr. Gallant, those were your signs that were so large.
Business has restrictions on signs in most towns. Size, lighting, distance from road, distance from intersections etc. Seems only fair that polititions should have to follow rules also. A sign tells me nothing tiher than someone is running for something. If I get to the polls and don’t have a prefference or don’t know who is who I don’t vote for that particular office. I read the news stories and watch the debates or go to a candidates night to make my mind up, sign is just more distraction on the road.
I don’t believe that you can ban political signs altogether as some have suggested. They are protected by the First Amendment but you can limit the size.
And while several posters have stated I “can’t imagine” someone basing their vote on a sign or some such language those signs do have an influence or the wouldn’t use them. Unfortunately, I can “imagine” a person basing their vote on a sign.
Campaign signage is a huge waste of time and monies, IMHO…..I have never based a vote, changed a vote or had a choice influenced by a “sign”…..but sadly, and apparently, many have….Crazy…..
I think there should also be a restriction on how close together a campaign can place it’s signs. Say for example, a campaign shouldn’t be able to place a sign within 500ft (picked arbitrary number) of a sign it has already placed.
I don’t vote anyone that puts a sign beside the road!!
I know some towns an cities have a set back rule on how close the signs can be to intersections
Political signs are a scourge on the landscape. They seem to enjoy the fertile soil around busy intersections where they often interfere with the line of sight of motorists. I would not mind if they were banned on the public roadways.
♫ Sign, sign, everywhere a sign. Blockin’ out the scenery, breakin’ my mind ♫ I say no political signs on any public property!!
Lovin’ the notes :)
I’m going to rant:
Candidates tout their fiscal responibility then place hundreds of expensive signs wastefully on public property.
Candidates tout quality of life in the community and then deface our most cherished public places, our parks.
Candidates tout support for public safety then create a safety issue blocking visibility at intersections and school crossings.
Candidates tout the election is about issues but the prominent issue becomes who can get the most signs closest to a polling place or an intersection.
Candidates site watefulness in government spending then government has to clean up all the election signs the campaigns leave behind- issue campaigns seem to be the worse as, win or lose, they disband minutes after the polls close.
Candidates tout their faith in the electorate making good choices for their elected official then they insult the voters intelligence by figuring if we see they name, not what they stand for, coutless times we will vote simply on name recognition. Some guy named Pavlov did work with dogs along this same line so may we assume the candidates who litter our town think of us no higher in intelligence level than dogs. I fear it is so!
Candidates tout their leadership skills then like schol children fight over sign placement, make bigger signs to hide the other candidates signs and sometime even steal or destroy other’s signs.
As I recall, from a poli sci class many years ago, the type of campaign sign we are talking about was concieved to be placed on the front lawn of a supporter. That showed others that a respected member of the community or the neighborhood supported a candidate generating others to research the candidates background, platform and encouraged discussion amongst the community about the cadidate or the issue.
It’s time to ban all political signage from public property. Yes, it’s legal, tested and the Town of Hampden has done it for a couple of decades. I’m betting the CC doesn’t have the fortitude to regulate their own behavior in the cause of community safety and liveability!
I was a candidate in another town and my total expenses were 31.50. I think that is responsible enough to get out my message. I to agree with the overwhelming amount spent on signs as it is ridiculous. A few well placed signs is all a person needs.
I wish the political advertising on T.V. could be slashed, too.
“Never mind that pesky Constitution thingy, free speech inconveniences me, get rid of it!”
If they cannot get thier message acrossed on an INDEX CARD, then dont put it out there…
Check titile 21 of the Maine Statues as it does give size limits. I think your problem is not size but placement.
I actually found it amusing this past election season to see all the “Be a Boy Scout” signs that were mixed into the political signs–same size as a standard political sign (like the one in the photo above), but promoting scouting rather than a politician or political cause.
I am always amazed by the amout of refuse that is generated around election time! Couldn’t that money be better spent addressing some of our problems???
Some people have no respect for the Constitution. It’s amazing that Pat Blanchard even thinks she has the authority to regulate people’s political displays on their private property. I’m so relieved that she doesn’t have a problem with my expressing my freedom of speech.
PB had no issue with signs on private property:
“The matter came before the City Council’s Government Operations Committee on Tuesday night at the request of Councilor Patricia Blanchette, who said she has no problem with political signs on private property but thought there ought to be some rules for those on city-owned land”.
The article is right there, I can read it. Thanks for the useless repitition, though. Any time I need an article repeated verbatim, I’ll know who to call.
You completely missed my point: Her view of political signs on private property is irrelevant, as she has no authority to regulate those. Her raising the issue – even just to clarify that she isn’t opposed to them – implies that she thinks she does have that power.