tfp33

                           POLITICAL SIGNS A NUISANCE
(Written under the psuedonym, "George Steinkrueger", and published 16 October 1996 in the Neighborhood Journal. Posted in toto with Preface and Epilogue 4 November 2001)

PREFACE -- In my 1994 run for St. Francois (Missouri) County Commissioner, I publicly pledged to not put up any campaign signs because I thought that they were not only ugly, but a waste of money, especially in a small county where everybody knows everybody. This column is, for all practical purposes, a restatement of that pledge.


       As the November election approaches, political signs are proliferating along our highways and byways. While the judicious use of a few political signs may be beneficial to a campaign, the overuse of signs is wasteful, obnoxious, unsightly, divisive, and hazardous to the public.
       While signs placed at key locations can increase name recognition, signs placed at every intersection, at every house, or along every road are overkill. As each sign costs an average of $10 or so, hundreds, and even thousands, of dollars are being spent on signs that are being placed in places that provide absolutely no benefit. It is absolutely ridiculous to see ten or more political signs installed at one location, or to see every house on a street have one candidate's signs. Instead of signs for every candidate of a party, wouldn't it be easier to have one sign that says "Vote Democratic" or "Vote Republican"? Yes. Isn't one sign per block enough name recognition? Yes. What a waste of money, money that could be used to actually help people. Wouldn't it be nice to see a candidate encourage donations to charities in lieu of signs?
       Political signs are, without a doubt, ugly. They mar the scenery. Furthermore, the use of political signs along the roadway violates the intent of the Highway Beautification Act, which called for the elimination of advertising signs along the roadway. (Since political signs are paid for, and advertise a product, the product being the candidate, they technically are advertisements, free speech notwithstanding.)
       Political signs cause animosity between neighbors. I know this from first hand experience. At a previous home I owned in another city, I refused to put political signs in my yard for several reasons: I think they're ugly, I worked for the city and didn't want to be accused of favoritism in the performing of my duties, and I didn't feel that the neighbors needed to know who I voted for (privacy is the reason we have secret balloting). The neighbors interpreted the lack of signs to mean that I was against their candidates, and thus proceeded to ostracize my family. Pretty silly, isn't it? Animosity due to political affiliation. I have friends who are both Republicans and Democrats; it doesn't matter to me what political persuasion a person is. Each individual has his or her own personal beliefs, and should not be ostracized because of those beliefs. Unfortunately, it happens too frequently.
       Political signs placed along the traveled way can create hazards to the motoring public. At the end of my street I have to pull out into a busy street in order to see around a political sign. If I get hit, who should I sue? The idiot whose yard it is in or the political candidate who allowed his workers to put up a sign blocking the view? If political candidates were liable for every accident caused by their signs, I think they would exercise much more control over their placement. If a candidate can't supervise the placement of a few signs, are they really fit to hold a public office?
       Political signs are not necessary. I speak from experience on this issue. I once ran for County Commissioner in Missouri. I spent a total of 13 cents (I made two copies) on the campaign. Part of my campaign platform was a pledge not to put up any signs; I didn't, not even in my own yard. (After all, even my signs would be ugly, and I am not a hypocrite.) I still got my message across via the media (especially the newspaper), and ended up losing by only 250 votes in a county of 50000 people. Many people told me I did much better than they had expected, as I did not spend any money. It can be done.
       Unfortunately, any ban on political sign placement must come from the candidates. Sadly, in 1994 the Supreme Court declared illegal a Ladue, Missouri, ordinance banning political signs. (The city thought them unsightly). And, it is the rare candidate who will willingly refrain from using the obnoxious things.
       Political signs have become the crutch of political organizations that do not want to talk about the issues. After all, many voters do not take the time to thoroughly get to know the candidates, they just vote for the candidate with the most or prettiest signs.
       Send the candidates a message: vote against whomever has wasted the most money on signs. After all, do we really want wasteful people running the government? It is our money they could waste.


EPILOGUE -- By 1998, I had modified my views on political signs somewhat, as I had come to the conclusion that they are a necessary evil. In my run for Mayor of Little Rock in 1998, I placed about a dozen or so handmade (out of salvaged material) signs throughout the city. In my 2001 run for Grand Prairie (Texas) City Council, the count increased to 100 professionally made signs. (That comes out to be one sign per 1,000 people.) However, I still believe that excessive signage is wasteful and obnoxious.
       On another note, despite my increased radicalism, I still have both Republican and Democratic friends.The more things change, the more they stay the same