Signs, signs — and more signs?

Political yard signs are all over town. Some of them have my name on them — they are a necessary part of political campaigning.

Some people like yard signs — they take pride in displaying signs that tell the world who they support, and they want to see their candidates’ names all over town. Many other people think they are ugly clutter. There are a few spots around town where there are so many signs (many for the same candidate or cause) that I expect everyone thinks they are ugly clutter.

The city has an ordinance restricting the display of political signs. Its main effect is to keep signs out of places where they are most likely to distract drivers. (Signs can’t be placed on medians, traffic islands, or within 15 ft of the shoulder on our major streets. City staff say they “harvested” 75 illegal signs from along highways a few days ago — I was pleased to hear that none of those signs had my name on them.)

The ordinance also says campaign signs can’t be displayed until 30 days before the election, which this year is being interpreted to mean 30 days before early voting starts.

Signs in yards are supposed to indicate that the residents support the candidate or cause whose sign they display, but a dirty little secret is that many signs are placed in front of vacant houses and other places where it is highly unlikely that they represent an actual resident’s actual opinion. This year, this is particularly true of “FOR” signs.

Until the last few days, I asked my supporters to place my signs only on private property controlled by someone who supports me (ADDED: or gave permission to place the sign), but now that the election is getting closer we are putting signs out on public rights of way and similar places. My apologies to those of you who consider these to be ugly clutter, but in order to get elected I need to put my name out where people can see it.

Some of the apparently public places where folks see many campaign signs (and where people urge me to place signs) are private property, often controlled by real estate developers who are engaging in political speech by allowing display of signs for candidates they approve of. Thus, for example, all those signs at the triangular intersection of Lafayette and Illinois, across Emory Valley Rd. from the Food Lion, and at various locations on the east Oak Ridge Turnpike reflect the views of R&R Properties and/or the Chinn family.

PS - If you want one of my signs for your yard (I admit that as lawn ornaments go, they are pretty tacky, but I’ve seen worse), please send me an e-mail or phone me (I’m in the book).

4 Comments »

1. This was an interesting post. I am one who sees these signs as tools, and when used as FOR has used them, it makes me think they need to try harder to reach citizens who are working for the success of this city, the sign doesn’t answer much.

   Now any political signs on private property, I hope you are right, I just haven’t seen an impressive amount of these signs. In fact, you are correct that some of these signs are just as vacant as the home. You can tell who is working their signs to make a statement, while others seem to have money to let lie on the side for days.

   And the ones that end up anywhere, those cost this city to clean up. The group should be reprimanded and the city to further dispose of these nuisances of signs. These people would like the city to look any old way; I am working to show them it shouldn’t. There is policy. And those who decided to ignore policy shows the stature of the candidate.

   If you need help with your signs anytime or after winning the election, I’ll be happy to.

   Comment by Ray Kircher — May 13, 2007 @ 12:16 am

2. Interesting suggestion about reprimanding candidates whose signs are placed where they don’t belong, but that’s just not practical. Not only do well-meaning volunteers make mistakes, but political yard signs are targets for petty vandalism (for example, a lot of signs got moved around on prom night), making it totally impossible to prove who is actually responsible for the placement of a sign.

   Comment by Ellen Smith — May 13, 2007 @ 12:24 pm

3. Some people get irrational about this business of campaign materials (so they are targeted for malicious mischief).

   Here’s an e-mail I received today (also sent to candidate Fred Childress):

   Good morning, Mr. Childress and Ms. Smith. I am a longterm resident of Oak Ridge and have voted in city elections since 1990. I have never before put a campaign sign in my yard, but this year I did so in support of Mr. Tom Hayes, a neighbor and an outstanding member our community for whom I have the utmost respect.

   This sign is on my PRIVATE property. Apparently someone affliliated with your organization does not believe I have a right to express my own opinion on my private property and felt it necessary to scatter literature in my lawn in opposition of Mr. Hayes and his views on the Crestpointe issue. Do the private property rights you support only extend to those who hold views in agreement to yours?

   I would have gladly taken the time to speak with whomever it was who did this in order to understand his or her views, but as this was apparently done in the middle of the night, I was not afforded that opportunity.

   Although I may disagree with some of your positions, I do appreciate your willingness to serve our community and the commitment you have made to your campaigns.

   I will look forward to your response.

   Sincerely,
   [NAME OMITTED FROM BLOG POST]

   And my reply:

   Hello, Ms. [NAME OMITTED]:

   I am sorry to hear what happened in your yard. This was vandalism; I suggest that you report it to the police (although they are unlikely to be able to do anything about it).

   Please do not assume that I or Mr. Childress, or indeed anyone known to either of us, was responsible for this act of vandalism. Vandalism, including both specifically directed attacks and random acts of vandalism, is a fact of life for anyone running for public office. For example, yard signs get stolen from private property all over town; sometimes they are dumped in ditches or on other properties; sometimes they are maliciously placed on someone else’s private property; sometimes signs have nasty graffiti written on them; and I have even heard of yard signs being set on fire on people’s lawns (not recently, fortunately). Most attacks on yard signs appear to be random pranks. Earlier this election season, a supporter in Emory Valley told me that my sign had disappeared from his lawn; he contacted the police, who said they had received reports of a group of teenage girls joyriding through the neighborhood and picking up signs at random — not just political signs but also signs for burglar alarm companies. In another example, on the morning after prom night, all yard signs in my neighborhood appeared in one very large collection on one family’s front lawn. See my blog [THIS ITEM] for some additional comments on the general subject of yard signs.

   I am not aware of (nor would I ever condone) anyone producing or distributing campaign literature in opposition to Mr. Hayes and/or his views on the Crestpointe issue. The “Vote NO on Crestpointe” material that I am aware of is specifically about the issue; it does not contain negative comments about any candidate or any candidate’s views. It is horrifying to me to think that someone might be distributing material attacking a candidate. If such material exists and appears to be from me, I want to see it — and I want to spread the word that I am not responsible for it. On the other hand, if some of my campaign material is included in the deposit on your lawn, I can only assume that a prankster stole my literature from someone who was distributing it on my behalf (thus making my campaign a victim of theft).

   If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to phone me [CONTACT INFORMATION PROVIDED]

   – Ellen Smith

   Comment by Ellen Smith — May 18, 2007 @ 12:27 pm

4. At his “View from Manland” site, Daco has posted a complaint about the proliferation of yard signs in which he says “I would love to see an end to political signs.”

   I share his view that election campaigns ought to be based on more civilized methods of communication, but the sad truth is that other communication methods have broken down. Newspaper readership is way down, the newspapers no longer have the resources to provide thorough and meaningful comparative information on the candidates (but at least this year no media outlets have sent questionnaires asking for meaningless comparative information on my favorite restaurant and favorite movie), and paid advertising in newspapers, direct mail, etc., is both very expensive and ignored by many people. (Websites cost very little by comparison, but reach only a limited audience.) Signs are a primitive communication tool, but they are the only tool that is guaranteed to reach all voters.

   Some relative newcomers to our city who I met while knocking on doors (another unsophisticated means of communicating with voters) expressed consternation at the proliferation of yard signs here, and told me that in their previous communities (in other states) every voter received a booklet in the mail (produced and mailed by the election commission) providing detailed information on all candidates and ballot issues. What a civilized thing that would be!!! If Tennessee implemented something like that, maybe we could get rid of yard signs, but not until that happens…

   Comment by Ellen Smith — May 28, 2007 @ 10:15 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>