Estonia? You are awesome Ken. There is no subject that you have not researched.

If we all take down signs we can spot and return them, the candidates will thank you!

Candidates own the signs and have a time limit to pick them up. Now is the time for us to think about political signs going forward. Here are some potiential ideas.
1. Ban them altogether
2. Limit them to priviate property only, no right of ways
3. Limit them to x number per block
4. Place temp bill boards in stragetic locations and let all candidates post them only on those bill boards
5. Limit total number candidate can place
6. Charge a deposit for each sign produced and then give refund for all taken down
And there are many other good ideas that could emerge.

Here are the problems: Free speech, how do you get name recognition against an incumbent? And other issues exist to be sure.

The regulations are approved by council but where do they come from to begin with?

Two ideas for immediate action by the citizens of Edmonds.
1. Either pick up all the remaining signs immediately, or wait until they are in violation of the cost and give them to Sue (see 17) or let Sue tell us what to do with them as we plan to return them to the owners. Then we can take a count and publish it in MEN as to who were the offenders and how many violations there were. Then we can ask the administration to follow the code and levy what ever penilities are in the code.
2. Set up a plan to immediately have the sign ordance reviewed and updated to try and take advantage of what we all remember about signage issues during the election. This could lead to a public discussion that could lead to a new and impoved way for us to move forward with new and maybe better ideas going forward.

Finally, as we relook at our temp sign codes let’s evaluate what other signs my be violating the code and see how we deal with those as well.

The visual pollution at election time is disgusting! What is even more disgusting is that some candidate supporters will steal or destroy their opponents’ signs. My friend Diane Buckshnis has had over 100 signs stolen, even from private people’s front yards!
Darrol, has there been a study somewhere that shows that signs have an influence on people’s vote? Many neighborhoods where I have lived did not allow signs in their covenant.

Betty, name recognition is one of the keys to win elections. Doorbelling and signs are a big component for name recognition.

Ron, Thinking about alternatives and offering ideas to have us all think a little about how we can improve town is not discusting. When is the legal deadline and to be a good citizen some candidates got going on sign removal even before 8pm on Tues, so it would be nice that all of our candidates pledged to remove signs immediately.

Joe, good to read your comments again. I knew of the things you mentioned but just wanted people to begin to THINK about options.

All I was suggesting was that we take some time now while we can all remember what signage is all about for all of our temp signs for that matter. Sometimes we can make better decisions if we talk about issues, discuss the facts, think about options and then see if we want to make changes.

Darrol:
I obviously was not referring to those comments of yours. But now I will ask, is being legal but not getting signs down right after the polls close make that candidate a bad citizen? That’s what you’re inferring. It’s tough enough running a campaign; candidates don’t also need to be then judged by rules devised by a few citizens. In the two elections that I ran for council, I had my signs down in less than 24 hours; I am retired and not having to deal with other demands on my time. Some candidates have many other things to get done. As long as they’re legal it’s unfair to harass them about it.

Campaign signs must be removed within 10 days of the election.

Darrol:
I like 19 # 2. Lets get a public dialogue started now on campaign signs
before people forget what a blight they are.
We can regulate these signs, it is being done in many cities around the
Country

I think that campaign signs are just one small price we pay for living in a democracy. This is political speech, and the First Ammendment prevents us from doing much about it.

For example, comment #19 #2 (Limit them to priviate property only, no right of ways) is not gonna fly. In Collier v. City of Tacoma, the Washington State Supreme Court held:

The traditional public forum includes those places “ ‘which by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate,’ ” such as parks, streets and sidewalks. The parking strips in which Collier and his supporters placed his political signs lie between the “streets and sidewalks” and thus are part of the “traditional public forum”. Because these places occupy a special position in terms of First Amendment protection, the government’s ability to restrict expressive activity is very limited.

You can find the entire opinion here:
https://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19930701_0040491.wa.htm/qx

Joe, I am for free speech and all that but in my area the city holds us accountable to mow, and maintain the right of way next to our home owners association commmon property. As a result we have grass, shrubs and other landscaping that requires irrigation and sign when hammered into the ground have caused damage to our private property and the property we are expected to maintain. So some how we have to balance the need for private property and public speech. I do not know where the balance is, but when candidates do damange that costs us money, some how I have a problem with such free speech. It that close to the “yelling fire in a theater” issue or are we expected to pick up the cost.

Darrol, I’m just finding it hard to get excited over the amount of damage a campaign sign can do. I just don’t see this as a problem that needs to be solved.

But for those of you who think this problem does need to be solved, the Constitution seriously limits your options. You don’t have to like it, but you’d be a fool to ignore it.

Anyway, I’m not someone who really cares about this one way or another. I just thought you should know you’re probably not going to win this battle. You’re not fighting me – you’re fighting the Constitution.

My answer to #1 is to contact the candidate. I’d be surprised if they didn’t pick up the sign the same day. If you don’t want to do that for some reason, I don’t really know what your legal options are. I suppose you could call the police, but you seem like too nice a guy to do that.

#2: The courts look at commercial speech very differently from political speech. All your examples but election signs are commercial speech. Cities are allowed broad discretion in regulating that. We have many existing regulations of commercial speech.

#3: That question is far too broad to me. I don’t really see a problem we need to solve.

Darrol:
We wanted a dialogue and it looks like we have one started. It is my belief that more then a majority of our fellow citizens would be delighted to be done with political signs on public property. I also believe that we can regulate them without violating constitutional rights. Lets see where this leads us.
Dave

I’m with Joe M. Signs are out there to alert people to issues and people we need to know more about. It’s an indication that people are interested in candidates and issues. I don’t see them as a problem but an indicator that our political system is working. We sometimes forget how lucky we are in having free speech.

Maybe my views are tainted.
After running around during the first several weeks installing signs and
repeatedly reinstalling stolen and or wind blown signs, I was overwhelmed
by the visual pollution I perceived. I’m going to check with a couple of cities in California that have a campaign sign law on the books. I am the last guy in favor of our city paying out more attorney fees.
I know A.C.E. will give us some feedback, I’m not in a mad dash to get anything really started until after the entire new city council and Mayor are seated. Thanks for your comments.
Dave