Saturday, November 18, 2006

Should the Town fine candidates for campaign signs that are not removed after an election is over?

Should the Town Board approve a new law that would require all campaign signs to be removed after a specific number of days after an election? If signs are not removed by the candidate - should town public works crews remove the sign and fine the candidates for each sign that we remove?
Your input would be appreciated.
How many days should we give candidates to have their signs removed?
What should the fine be?
In some communities candidates must provide the locality with a deposit at the beginning of the campaign -before any signs are placed at given locations. The deposit is refunded at the end of the campaign after the signs have been removed. Should we require deposits?
In other localities candidates are required to advise the locality where signs are going to be placed. Any thoughts?

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

The town should not fine candidates because these signs could be put up by private citizens in support of the candidate and would have no way of knowing where these signs are, in order to remove them.

Anonymous said...

This is not significant enough of a problem to warrant a law or fines. Plus, it would be too complex to manage and enforce. The town has enough difficulty trying to handle its everyday requirements.

Nancy said...

I absolutely think so and also for private people who post signs that have expired such as tag and yard sales. This will make the posters more consious of where they put them up and will be an asset the community. I think a possible time span would be 2 weeks and the fine amount should be enough to be an incentitive for the posting people to want to take them down. The money should go into a fund to aid the poor. Any citizen should be allowed to take the signs after 2 weeks and turn them into village hall.

Mark said...

A sign law should have been put into effect many years ago. The candidates have little concern for taking these signs down, and do not consider holding on to some people to take them down after elections are over. The only thing most of them have on there mind is for there name to be out there. As members of this community we certainly don't want to see there name 6 months after elections are over.

Anonymous said...

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!even during elections our roadsides become so cluttered with these signs, it is disgusting! let the candidates become responsible for discouraging rather than encouraging future placement of these things....even if they don't know exact locations of these things, let them drive around and pick them up, and after two weeks pay a fine.

Anonymous said...

like the leaf law, it's unwise to have these discussions during their seasons when emotions run higher ... discussions about leaves and campaign signs are best during the springtime ... the town's main focus right now needs to be the budget

Anonymous said...

It makes more sense to discuss leaves when the leaves are down - not when the leaves are up (and no one cares). We should discuss issues when people can be focused.

Anonymous said...

"We should discuss issues when people can be focused." And right now the focus is too emotional. In the springtime it would be more cerebral.

Anonymous said...

Discussing leaves in the springtime makes as much sense as discussing snow removal in August. Christmas shouldn't be in July. This is the time to discuss leaf collection.

Anonymous said...

Planning for snow removal is actually very wise to do in August. You get a more intelligent plan when you remove the immediate drama. Same for leaf removal and campaign sign removal - plans to be discussed many months in advance.

Anonymous said...

I think three weeks after the election is about right, and I think signs on private property should be the responsibility of the property owner (who presumably gave permission for the signs), and the candidates should be responsible for signs on public property. After the time, whatever it is, has expired, the town should remove them or cause them to be removed, and bill the candidates for the actual cost of removal.

I also see this as a pretty low priority issue, all things considered.