Election sign rules are broken
L ast week I wrote in this space about the value and effectiveness of election lawn signs. As I see it, these signs are an antiquated and ineffective means of campaign communication and messaging. They are more demonstrative than persuasive and more about recognition than motivation. In short, they do little to advance the interests of a candidate.
The City of Peterborough has a series of policies and regulations for the placement of election signs on public property, some of which were put in place 18 years ago, and many of which are routinely ignored by candidates and campaigners. Here’s what the sign landscape looks like.
The city sign bylaw requires that you cannot put an election sign on any city property prior to Labour Day for a municipal election, or prior to the date of the issuance of the writ for a federal or provincial election. That is, we don’t want to see signs on city property too early ... just long enough to match the expected length of the campaign. The by-law also requires that you take down your signs from City property within three days of voting day.
That is, you are permitted to use City property, so clean up after yourself. While most campaigns are conscientious about the clean up, some are not ... and especially those that lose.
The city also has a 1997 policy on sign placement on public property, including election signs. There is some workable stuff here, such as signs being temporary only, not secured below the surface of the ground and easily removable.
But what about the policy that requires election signs to be at least 20 metres from an intersection? It is routinely violated. What about the policy that requires election signs to be at least 1.5 metres from a sidewalk or curb?
It is routinely violated. What about the policy that prohibits election signs where they are an “operational nuisance” to activities like City grass cutting? It is routinely violated.
What about the policy that prohibits election signs from the front of public buildings or public parks without specific City approval? It too is violated. What about the policy that prohibits elections signs greater in size than 1 metre by 1.5 metres? Same story.
There comes a point in the process of good governance when the weight of unsatisfactory experience compels reconsideration. I think we have reached that point in terms of election signs on City boulevards. What to do? One option is to burrow in and hire a crew of by-law enforcement people to uphold the letter of the law.
A better course is to rethink the merits of permitting any election signs on city boulevards at all. In that event, election signs would be limited to private property, where their placement is actually earned, and where one gets an accurate indication of candidate support. Sign clutter would be gone. Driver distraction would be reduced. So would City costs for collection. Less waste would go to the landfill. And we would not be unique: Ontario municipalities such as Mississauga, Vaughan and Burlington have prohibited election signs on all their City property.
Good campaigns are inventive, and the loss of election signage on boulevards will spur some long overdue creativity in candidate marketing. Elsewhere, candidates have used bicycles, cars, rickshaws, bus shelters and billboards for public promotion, and the novelty itself has been far more impactful than any roadside sign.
The city has its obligations to candidates in an election season, including the right to freedom of expression, but it doesn’t have to serve as their pin cushion.