At County Board member Jay Fissette's request, the County Board is expected to reconsider the County's regulation of political signs during an upcoming County Board meeting. The Planning Commission has already spent substantial time on this issue and taken testimony from concerned citizens.
I am pasting below some interesting testimony from the bipartisan ad hoc committee which recently looked into this issue, because I think that this testimony does a good job of describing the issues and articulating the committee's non-binding recommendations.
The Civic Federation is now considering whether to take a position on this issue in advance of the county board's meeting, so now would be the time to express any views you have on this issue, whether you would like to see more restrictive regulation or less. The testimony is as follows:
Planning Commission Testimony June 2, 2003
Bonnie S. Franklin, Chair Task Force on Political Signs
Background I am Bonnie Franklin. In December of 2001, Jay Fisette who was then chair of the county board asked me to chair a group to look at the county ordinances relating to the display of political signs. The group had two representatives from the Arlington County Republican Party (Tom Brooke and Richard Samp) and two representatives from the Arlington County Democratic Party (Bob Platt and Warren Nelson). Jay asked me to chair because I would be a neutral person as president of the League of Women Voters of Arlington.
The League is known for its interest in the fairness and openness of election processes and for its nonpartisanship. The League of Women Voters does not have a position on the display of political signs in Arlington. The views I am expressing today are those of the political signs task force and were arrived at as the result of 18 months of debate and discussion among task force members. We just recently came to consensus and want to share our ideas with you as you consider the changes proposed by county staff.
Philosophy/Framework of Task Force Views I'll state at the outset that we agree that some regulation is necessary to prevent unchecked proliferation of signs. At the same time, we believe that it is important to democracy that citizens know about upcoming elections, candidates, and ballot issues; political signs are an important way to communicate with the entire body politic, especially in our area of high-cost TV advertising. Thus, the question becomes one of striking the right balance for Arlington.
We feel the overarching consideration ought to be allowing freedom of speech with as few restrictions as possible. In our opinion, the staff proposal before you certainly moves in the right direction on several points. In other ways, we feel it is too restrictive.
Size of Signs We agree with the change to a larger sign size although the proposed limit of six (6) square feet in area is a bit smaller than the signs used in the last general election listing party slates. They were 6.25 square feet. In order to be legible, such signs must be larger than signs for one candidate. Voters often find it helpful to know party affiliation among candidates.
Signs on Private Property Concerning signs on private property, our task force believes that people should have the right to display political signs on their premises at any time with very few restrictions. · We agree with dropping the current requirement for a permit, a requirement that has not been enforced. · We agree with limiting freestanding signs to a height of six feet. · We disagree with the maximum sign area per building address of 25 square feet.
Based on the signs in use today, such a limit would allow about five signs, and we envision some scenarios where this limit would have unfair results. For example, in a multi-unit building address, there could be more than five units who each wish to display a window sign. Or one candidate could get five signs placed, making it illegal for the opposing candidate to place any signs at that building address. If the County wishes to keep a square foot restriction per building address for political signs, we suggest that it be applied only to single family dwellings or not apply to window signs.
· We also oppose time limits for display of signs on private property.
Limiting sign display from seventy (70) days before to 10 days after an election or nominating event by a political party rules out legitimate civic expression on other types of issues that are not keyed to elections. For example, there are currently signs around relating to peoples' feelings on a baseball stadium in Arlington. We think such expressions are appropriate and a healthy sign of community involvement. The time restrictions in the proposal make this sort of expression illegal. Are the time limitations really necessary for the signs relating to elections and party nominating events? Most people would have no reason to display the signs except in proximity to the election or nominating event.
We feel on private property, people should be free to express their views at any time on any political candidate or issue.
Signs on Public Property Moving to signs on public property, we recognize that the County has a right to more restrictions especially in the matter of public safety issues such as visibility at traffic intersections. There are also esthetic concerns of preventing litter and clutter that have to be cleaned up at county expense. The County also needs to be mindful of judicial precedents on the constitutional issues of free speech so that political speech is not placed under more restrictions than commercial speech. We believe the best way to achieve these goals is to keep the ordinance simple so that people can clearly understand where and when they may place signs.
Concerning where signs may be placed on public property:
· We agree with the county's proposed limitation of one sign per candidate or issue per median strip segment or intersection wedge segment. · We agree that no sign should be placed in any traffic circle in a residential area or on any utility pole, tree, or traffic sign. · We agree with the requirement that no sign should be placed in such a fashion as to constitute a vision obstruction at street intersections. We feel that these requirements work together well. They are easy for campaign workers to apply when they place the signs. They provide limits on the number of signs. They protect the County's concern for traffic safety.
Unfortunately, the County muddies the water when it adds that no sign shall be placed within 15 feet of the end of any street median, channelized turning island or pedestrian refuge island. There are several problems here. For starters, a term like "channelized turning island" may be clear to the Public Works Department, but it is not general parlance and will likely cause confusion to those volunteers who place the signs.
The next question is "Why 15 feet?' Presumably it relates to visibility questions, but it seems rather arbitrary and assumes that people have a way to measure. In practice, the 15 feet would have to be estimated, and peoples' judgments will vary. Considering that a median has two ends, we are talking about 30 feet of excluded space per median for sign display. This may rule out some shorter medians. We now have to wonder which medians are legal for sign placement and which are not. We no longer have a clear "one sign per median" rule; we have abandoned simplicity and imposed an arbitrary definition of 15 feet, the purpose of which is not clear.
Concerning when signs may be placed on public property: · We strongly disagree with the short time window when signs may be displayed.
The County is proposing display from 14 days before an election to 2 days afterwards. We agree that signs should be displayed continuously around elections, but we think that the time period should begin up to 40 days prior. That conforms to the period when intense campaigning begins, and the public starts to focus on the candidates and issues.
We also think that sign display should be allowed in connection with party nominating events. Otherwise, you have disparate results when parties choose different nominating vehicles. Signs may be placed for primary elections like the Democratic one coming up next week, but not for party caucuses or conventions like the Republicans just held. The name of the primary winner would have more public exposure going into the general election.
The members of our task force who are attorneys believe that the short time frame proposed unduly limits display of temporary political signs compared to temporary commercial signs. As such, they feel the restriction could be challenged judicially as a violation of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. We spent a lot of time wrestling with this issue and had developed an option A and option B approach whereby individual candidates could opt for display on weekends throughout the year, a right under the current ordinance, or opt for a continuous display period around the election. This might be something you would want to consider in order to avoid unnecessary litigation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
