I'm just saying that if we allow ANY 'road spam', then why should it not be on an equal footing with everyone and not just let the big guys get all the priveleges?

It might be because us "big guys" have to play by a number of rules. The people who make political signs and the volunteers who place them next to highways do not. This situation is simply not right.

The sign company for whom I work voluntarily complies with much more stringent rules (in part so we can do business in Texas, but more so our service crews will have better and safer signs in which to service). We have to build all electrical signs UL Listed (even though Oklahoma doesn't explicitly require it, although it should; National Electric Code does). We have to get all those permits, submit site plans, prove wind load/engineering and all sorts of other stuff.

We don't install our signs where any part of the sign is "breaking the plane" past the customer's property line. We refuse to install anything that even hangs over into the utility easement, much less do something arrogantly stupid like encroaching the highway right of way.

It should be said a good number of sign companies don't follow any of those rules. Some are able to get away with that because they have some well-placed friends in high places. Others are able to slide on that because of politicans that champion all things cheap and trashy, even if that cheap and trashy thing is illegal.

The entire state of Oklahoma could radically clean up its sign situation if it had a well enforced contractor license system. To qualify for the license the sign shop has to meet requirements similar to what states like Texas and Florida require with their programs. Cities can help enforce that by refusing to grant installation permits unless the sign company's contractor license situation is in proper order and the sign it wants to install meets requirements like those in National Electric Code. That would shut down a lot of the no-talent cut rate amateur shops that visually trash up a community with cheap garbage signage.

Of course that's a bit of a rant away from the subject of non-lighted, temporary political signs. But the attitude of "I'm going to install this visual trash wherever I want" is the same.


It's called tradition. Love it or hate it, It's an AMERICAN tradition.

Activities like cannibalism and ritual human sacrifice have been regarded as traditions as well. If mounting political signs out in the highway median is okay, can we start building Aztec alters and searching for virgins to execute? We can cut out their hearts in that traditional manner.

I bring up a rather extreme analogy to simply point out that "tradition" is a really weak argument to justify something that is still 100% illegal.

I believe if a police or highway patrol officer spots anyone placing a political sign out in the highway right of way or even in the utility easement the officer should be able to issue a fine equal to that of littering on the highway (also an expensive offense).

Others can take the "freedom of speech" and "tradition" view on that. I believe the only signs that should ever be allowed in the highway ROW are traffic control signs. The only exception I would allow is a nice community entry sign that spans over the road. That's about it.

Activities like cannibalism and ritual human sacrifice have been regarded as traditions as well. If mounting political signs out in the highway median is okay, can we start building Aztec alters and searching for virgins to execute? We can cut out their hearts in that traditional manner.

I bring up a rather extreme analogy to simply point out that "tradition" is a really weak argument to justify something that is still 100% illegal.

Do you know of any American troops dying to bring cannibalism and human sacrifice to another country? That "extreme" analogy hardly warrants a response. In fact, your "comparison." is insulting. Part of democracy - and our democratic tradition - has been electioneering with signs, placards, etc (and yes, on public property and not on just pretty green suburban lawns). If you can't see the difference between what I was writing about and human sacrifice, I suggest you go back to torturing us with long treatises on movie projector bulbs. I'm sorry, but I take this issue seriously and your silly analogy minimizes the seriousness of what elections, campaigns, democracy - and all the blood shed to allow them - means to us all.

-----------

I use that analogy to drag down that word "tradition" because the word "tradition" is often used to rationalize and justify illegal and immoral behavior.

The KKK had a long tradition. Segregration had a long tradition. Arctic communities have had a long tradition bashing in the heads of harp seal pups. This can go on and on.

You can be insulted by my analogy if you like. Personally insulting me about my knowledge of film projectors is pretty low.

Attaching our soldiers efforts in Iraq does nothing to make the placement of campaign signs in the highway right of way acceptable. The fact is that practice is illegal and can be dangerous to drivers. It simply should not be allowed at all.

All campaign signs need to be back behind the property lines, out of the utility easement, out of the highway right of way and posted within the rules of the city's sign ordinance.

I use that analogy to drag down that word "tradition" because the word "tradition" is often used to rationalize and justify illegal and immoral behavior.

The KKK had a long tradition. Segregration had a long tradition. Arctic communities have had a long tradition bashing in the heads of harp seal pups. This can go on and on.

You can be insulted by my analogy if you like. Personally insulting me about my knowledge of film projectors is pretty low.

Attaching our soldiers efforts in Iraq does nothing to make the placement of campaign signs in the highway right of way acceptable. The fact is that practice is illegal and can be dangerous to drivers. It simply should not be allowed at all.

All campaign signs need to be back behind the property lines, out of the utility easement, out of the highway right of way and posted within the rules of the city's sign ordinance.

I wasn't too happy with your earlier post calling me "WHITEranger"....you said it was a typo....but after my posts on the gang problems, I have a hard time believing that. So, maybe I was a bit harsher than normal. With that said though......

1. Your interpretation of "tradition" is not one that most would subscribe to. A great American tradition is not usually shot down by semantics and silly analogies to the KKK, human sacrifice, etc. Please.

2. If you fail to see the DIRECT correlation between OUR freedom to visibly show dissent in this country, solicit votes in free elections, etc., with what is currently taking place in Iraq then you are missing my message by not seeing the forest for the trees. Or, shall I say, you are failing to appreciate the ACTIONS of a democracy after a lifetime of taking them for granted. (In fact, some of them have apparently become an intolerable nuisance.) Worrying about the signs WOULD seem silly to someone not allowed that privilege.

3. Sorry about the crack about projector bulbs, but damn Bobby, you write like you're writing monographs for the National Society for the Preservation of Film Projectionists. It could be interesting, but nobody here knows what the heck you're talking about! I was only suggesting that you go back to discussing the projectors (in great detail) if you truly fail to see the connection between democracy in America - and the traditions that go along with it.

-----------------------

It is not that people do not understand the intent of previous posts; the intent of those persons is so strong to show the superiority they have falsely convinced themselves they have and to control the masses that they will attempt to distort anything to their point of view.

They think they are fooling those masses, but all they are doing is exposing their own stupidity.

Yeah, I guess this is off topic, but it needs to be said.

I wasn't too happy with your earlier post calling me "WHITEranger"....you said it was a typo...

It was a typo. I missed a "r" character. Pretty easy mistake to make. There is no point in reading further into it.


A great American tradition is not usually shot down by semantics and silly analogies to the KKK, human sacrifice, etc. Please.

So basically you're claiming the practice of illegally placing poltical campaign signs out in the highway right of way is a "great American tradition," correct? You seriously need to redirect your dismissive "please" comment at what you typed.

"Tradition" is a term commonly distorted to protect all sorts of shady practices. People don't just use that word for things like Baseball, Mom and Apple Pie. Prejudice has been a "great American tradition," and continues to be in some places.


If you fail to see the DIRECT correlation between OUR freedom to visibly show dissent in this country, solicit votes in free elections, etc., with what is currently taking place in Iraq then you are missing my message by not seeing the forest for the trees.

I understand those issues. However all of those Democratic processes must be done within the limits of the law. It is illegal to place any kind of sign except for traffic control signs within the boundaries of a highway right of way. That law isn't there to quash freedom of speech. The policy is in place to protect the safety of motorists.


Sorry about the crack about projector bulbs, but damn Bobby, you write like you're writing monographs for the National Society for the Preservation of Film Projectionists. It could be interesting, but nobody here knows what the heck you're talking about!

If you didn't like the technical nature of those posts, why did you bother reading them? As much as it costs to go to the movies anymore some folks want to find out what makes some theaters better than others and separate facts from hype when it comes to new things like digital projection. In the context of the Warren Theatres thread I felt my comments were relevant.


It is not that people do not understand the intent of previous posts; the intent of those persons is so strong to show the superiority they have falsely convinced themselves they have and to control the masses that they will attempt to distort anything to their point of view.

They think they are fooling those masses, but all they are doing is exposing their own stupidity.

Oki_Man5, if you're directing that comment at me, please back it up with some specifics.

I have worked in the sign industry for more than a decade and am very familiar with laws pertaining to road signs. Please find something specific to prove I am wrong on my stance about how it is illegal to place political signs in a highway right of way. Do something of substance rather than stooping down and just calling someone "stupid."

Without re-reading all that crap about the wailing of the opposition of the illegality of signs on the ROW (I read it once, and once was enough for me.), I will say that I do not remember anyone claiming that they are legal when placed on the ROW. Even in some circumstances, signs posted on private property without a permit are illegal (Yes! even your perfectly-made signs)---the interstates in Oklahoma for instance.

So there you have it, I know the signs placed on the ROW's are illegally placed; you misread what I said just as you misread everything else posted that you commented on. Did you misread it on pourpose?

In view that I agree that the signs are illegally placed, yet I have no problem with them being there, do you need any more info?

Just like ordinances that limit the height of grass on a lawn to a maximum of 12 inches---it is a feel-good ordinance; do you know how far up 12 inches would be on a one-year-old kid?

A "feel good" ordinance? I thought grass that was too tall was dangeous, hence the reason for the ordinance. Plus unsightly.

(BOT) As long as the candidates remove the signs in a timely manner, I see nothing wrong. In fact, I like seeing the signs every two years. It tells me it is my favorite sporting season... Political season.

You can have YOUR Super Bowl. Mine is every two years... The first Tuesday in November.

But what good is an ordinance that allows the grass to be 12 inches in height? That is the point I was attempting to make. Just like the sign in ROW ordinance---yeah, it is wrong (read: against the law)to put them there, but it is a fact of life that it happens.

I will even go so far as to say that the person putting it there knows it is against the law, but he puts it there anyway.

But what good is an ordinance that allows the grass to be 12 inches in height? That is the point I was attempting to make. Just like the sign in ROW ordinance---yeah, it is wrong (read: against the law)to put them there, but it is a fact of life that it happens.

I will even go so far as to say that the person putting it there knows it is against the law, but he puts it there anyway.
Candidates and their "helpers" break the law????:ohno:

So there you have it, I know the signs placed on the ROW's are illegally placed; you misread what I said just as you misread everything else posted that you commented on. Did you misread it on pourpose?

I didn't misread anything.

The law is pretty simple and I see no justification for there to be any slack extended to any political candidate when it comes to placing political signs in areas where they very clearly do not belong. You may feel it is okay. I feel it is untolerable.

I disagree with the contention about the law banning all but traffic control signs in a highway ROW is a "feel good ordinance".

You say you read my posts repeatedly but it appears to me you may have missed the factor of maintaining driver safety. This isn't just about limiting visual trash and clutter.

Signs in the ROW can block visibility in sight triangles at traffic intersections. Not all of these campaign signs are tiny. Some candidates recognize the fact letters on ads need to be a certain size for traffic to read them effectively. I have seen large political banners and placards mounted in areas that block sight triangles at traffic intersections. That kind of thing can block the view of oncoming traffic and cause a serious or even fatal car accident. Small signs stuck right next to the road can be misread by drivers as other kinds of objects. They may swerve in reaction and get into an accident either by crashing alone or into another vehicle.

Does it need to take someone getting killed in a grisly car accident for some folks to realize why those PITA laws have been there in the first place? I feel any driver's life is worth a lot more than some guy's convenience to just plant political sign trash wherever he chooses.

Traffic control signs within the highway ROW must be designed to strict guidelines set by the USDOT and The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). I've never seen a political sign ever designed to be compliant with the specs listed in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). That's even more reason to keep that garbage out of the ROW.

Speaking of "misreading" things, I hope no one is taking my view as being in favor of a complete outright ban on political signs. The folks placing those signs simply need to follow the same rules an reputable sign company is supposed to follow. They need to follow the regulations of the local sign ordinance and keep their displays out of the utility easement and highway right of way.

And I cannot pinpoint a specific instance sitting here in my airconditioned area typing this, but there are many things out there that needs to be moved for driver/passenger/pedestrian safety---namely bushes planted right up next to the curb at an intersection---I would guess that about anyone who drives has run onto instances where they say that the fill in this blank is blocking the view of the drivers.

And the other day, I came up to an intersection, and there sat a minivan---not only was it sitting there, but it had the doors on both sides open; I turned around and went to another intersection because it too was on a curve, and it was impossible to see around it.

Nearly all political signs I have seen on the ROW have been the small signs on the wires or the wooden Tee (The ugly of those small signs---commercial I believe, but the same sign was the reason for the beginning of this thread---not the driver safety issue: again you misread.), and I have never to my recollection had one block my view. I suppose if there were a pre-toddler crawling on the ground near an intersection, the signs could block that person from my view, but that is another problem altogether.

This argument is ridiculous, but I am loving it. Finally, there is something worth my time on OKC Talk.

The below article is from today's Oklahoman. I know I'll be attending the city council meetings to raise the issue and I hope Bobby H. and others can come make a statement.


Vote scheduled for city policy on sign removal

By John Sutter
Oklahoma City Manager Jim Couch soon may have power to decide which city employees can yank up political signs they think are illegally placed.
Couch says he has not ruled out the possibility that the mayor and city council members would be able to pull up political signs they think are illegal -- even though some of them are seeking higher elected offices and are waging their own sign campaigns.

Currently, only police and seven code enforcement officers are allowed to remove political campaign signs and business advertisements illegally put on public rights of way.

The city council will vote Aug. 15 on the law change. Council members voted Tuesday to set aside the period leading up to that date for public comment.

Ward 8 Councilman Pat Ryan asked Couch to look into sign code enforcement after he noticed a large number of signs cluttering intersections and streets in northwest Oklahoma City.

Ryan said he doesn't think council members would abuse their power if allowed to remove signs they deem illegal.

"I'd like to think that the character of the current council, at least, would not encourage that kind of activity," Ryan said. "I'm not saying it's not possible. Perhaps we just need to be careful. Maybe we need to turn them (removed signs) in to somebody to indicate that we've picked them up."

Some see potential conflicts of interest.

"It's fraught with peril," Ward 4 Councilman Pete White said. "It's got some serious concerns, and I suspect that the council is going to lay itself over some major criticism no matter how they come down on this thing."

White said it will be difficult to enforce the sign ordinance equitably, no matter who is given that task. He said he understands the concerns of getting rid of sign clutter, but he said council members running around the city selectively removing the political signs of their opponents is "almost like a 'Saturday Night Live' skit."

If the ordinance is approved, Couch says he will base his decisions about who removes signs on recommendations from council members.

Ryan said that no matter who Couch decides can pick up the signs, council members will be held accountable to the public and to each other.

"Public outcry ... would be horrible" if council members tried to disturb legal political signs, he said. "I guess that's one of the saving graces: This is a very public process."

The below article is from today's Oklahoman. I know I'll be attending the city council meetings to raise the issue and I hope Bobby H. and others can come make a statement.


Vote scheduled for city policy on sign removal

By John Sutter
Oklahoma City Manager Jim Couch soon may have power to decide which city employees can yank up political signs they think are illegally placed.
Couch says he has not ruled out the possibility that the mayor and city council members would be able to pull up political signs they think are illegal -- even though some of them are seeking higher elected offices and are waging their own sign campaigns.

Currently, only police and seven code enforcement officers are allowed to remove political campaign signs and business advertisements illegally put on public rights of way.

The city council will vote Aug. 15 on the law change. Council members voted Tuesday to set aside the period leading up to that date for public comment.

Ward 8 Councilman Pat Ryan asked Couch to look into sign code enforcement after he noticed a large number of signs cluttering intersections and streets in northwest Oklahoma City.

Ryan said he doesn't think council members would abuse their power if allowed to remove signs they deem illegal.

"I'd like to think that the character of the current council, at least, would not encourage that kind of activity," Ryan said. "I'm not saying it's not possible. Perhaps we just need to be careful. Maybe we need to turn them (removed signs) in to somebody to indicate that we've picked them up."

Some see potential conflicts of interest.

"It's fraught with peril," Ward 4 Councilman Pete White said. "It's got some serious concerns, and I suspect that the council is going to lay itself over some major criticism no matter how they come down on this thing."

White said it will be difficult to enforce the sign ordinance equitably, no matter who is given that task. He said he understands the concerns of getting rid of sign clutter, but he said council members running around the city selectively removing the political signs of their opponents is "almost like a 'Saturday Night Live' skit."

If the ordinance is approved, Couch says he will base his decisions about who removes signs on recommendations from council members.

Ryan said that no matter who Couch decides can pick up the signs, council members will be held accountable to the public and to each other.

"Public outcry ... would be horrible" if council members tried to disturb legal political signs, he said. "I guess that's one of the saving graces: This is a very public process."

Keeping in mind my earlier comments, it's sure good to see the city council taking on such important business. We'll go to war and fight, "for democracy," and brag about our own, while we work hard to squash it in order to please a bunch of loud, spolied uppities who are badly in need of understanding that democracy is sometimes ugly - literally ugly....like the visible activity of electioneering with signs!

Metro, I have a theory. Did you maybe lose your race for Bethany City Council after your opponent managed to get more signs up than you? Maybe you didn't have the money, manpower, etc. to get it done and the visibility of your opponent sank your campaign. Now, you are ticked at campaign signs as they remind you of your political loss. Just a theory. Or, is it? You seem to be on a major crusade for something that seems rather silly to expend so much energy on.

Again, people all over this globe....some just 90 miles off the Florida coast, would give anything to put a damn political sign in the middle of a street median, or plaster a sign on a utility pole to be able to participate in the visible actions of a thriving democracy and free elections. I hope you feel good STIFLING IT. Damn your "ordinances"....I hope people will stop and think of the irony of troops dying on one side of the globe to "bring democracy to Iraq", while we have silly and spoiled crusaders thinking it's all so ugly that we need to give it a one-two punch here at home.

I'm disgusted.

------------------

Well, you might be even more disgusted, or possibily homocidal, if a friend or family member of yours is killed in a traffic collision because a sign, banner or placard blocked the view of oncoming traffic.

There is LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of land outside of the freaking highway right of way in which political signs can be posted. I wonder if some of the folks arguing in favor of sticking political sign trash right up against the curb side of a major street have bothered to think about this.

I find it even more disgusting that this is even a point of debate. The highway ROW is very clearly, absolutely off limits to all signs except for traffic control signs. Why exactly is there suddenly this need to just stick political signs anywhere? Really. If that clutter can go there, then what's to stop some political doofus from barging into your house and planting his campaign sign right into the middle of your coffee table? The dude can float the same arguments issued here, "if you're against having my sign spiked through your coffee table then you are against free speech, un-American and against the Democratic process." That scenario may sound silly, but it follows the same logic posed by those who insist on allowing political garbage to be posted within a highway right of way.

To repeat, the law is already on the books. You cannot legally post political cluterry sign garbage right up in the highway. Those who don't like the law can get mad if they like. They can break their hands from punching their fists into walls for all I care. Those who talk about supporting the "Democratic process" need to also respect the laws supporting it, including where signs can be legally placed.

If you decide to barge into my house for any reason, would you prefer the business end of my 12-gauge shotgun or the clean shot of my 357 Magnum, 40 caliber or one of the many others this redneck is proud to say he legally has?

I cannot believe you are still hanging onto the thought process that there are any of us who do not know it is illegal to place the signs on the ROW; Wow! If I were to say what I am really thinking here, I would surely be banned again.

As I said earlier, I have yet to see one of those signs either political or business obstructing traffic; now, I can imagine a bunch of nutcase vigilantes on a spree of picking them up jumping through traffic with an armload scared to death that the person who posted them might catch them---I guess it would serve them right to get pasted to a windshield though.

Hopefully if this happens, the police will not be tied up with their duty of picking up the signs, and they will be able to help the poor bleeding soul.

Well, you might be even more disgusted, or possibily homocidal, if a friend or family member of yours is killed in a traffic collision because a sign, banner or placard blocked the view of oncoming traffic.

There is LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of land outside of the freaking highway right of way in which political signs can be posted. I wonder if some of the folks arguing in favor of sticking political sign trash right up against the curb side of a major street have bothered to think about this.

I find it even more disgusting that this is even a point of debate. The highway ROW is very clearly, absolutely off limits to all signs except for traffic control signs. Why exactly is there suddenly this need to just stick political signs anywhere? Really. If that clutter can go there, then what's to stop some political doofus from barging into your house and planting his campaign sign right into the middle of your coffee table? The dude can float the same arguments issued here, "if you're against having my sign spiked through your coffee table then you are against free speech, un-American and against the Democratic process." That scenario may sound silly, but it follows the same logic posed by those who insist on allowing political garbage to be posted within a highway right of way.

To repeat, the law is already on the books. You cannot legally post political cluterry sign garbage right up in the highway. Those who don't like the law can get mad if they like. They can break their hands from punching their fists into walls for all I care. Those who talk about supporting the "Democratic process" need to also respect the laws supporting it, including where signs can be legally placed.

You act like the ROW is privately owned.
WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK OWNS IT?

You're a professional signmaker. YOU cause more accidents than any small political sign! YOUR signs - In all their glitter - TRYING HARD to divert eyeballs.

Your disdain and comments making fun of the ACTIVE democratic process is something right out of hicksville. You'd be mush in Philly or Chicago or anywhere where they have free and open electioneering for a certain time up until the elections.

You, the professional advertising SIGNMAKER, worried about traffic accidents from the small political signs?
While you make glitzy signs DESIGNED to take my eyes off the road? PLEASE!

Such hypocrisy.


----------------------------------------

WRITERranger, you ignorant slut. (couldn't resist the SNL point/counterpoint barb)

First, taxpayer funded roadways do not ever at all translate into a venue where any person can simply post his trash right up next to cars whizzing by at 50mph or better. All roadways must be governed by standards where driver safety and traffic movement take precidence over all other considerations.

In your last post you claim that regular commercial business signs that are legally posted within property lines and compliant with local sign ordinances cause traffic accidents. Now please back up that claim with some SPECIFIC PROOF.

Further, please be invited to march into any or all given businesses in Oklahoma City and tell them that their signs are causing traffic accidents and that they need to be immediately removed. See what kind of reaction you will get from businesses that actually obeyed the law.

To repeat further to you, WRITERranger: I'M TALKING ABOUT OBEYING THE %$&@ LAW.

You have no valid stance at all in justifying the placement of political signs within a highway's right of way or even within a utility easement, no matter how angry you get.

Get off of the stupid, idiotic personal attack B.S. and back up your vitriol with some actual substantive reasoning for your pro-"let's stick all our cluttery political trash right by curbside" stance.

You gain absolutely nothing by personally attacking me. The fact remains. It is against the law to put political signs in the highway right of way. The fact remains even if I never ever existed. Is that enough of a clue to you?

Unless you have something of real substance to offer in this discussion besides personal attacks against me I suggest you drop it and go to another thread. Choosing me as the would-be opponent is about as good as propping up a strawman to argue against. I contend it is wholly unacceptable to place ANY kind of signage within a highway ROW other than traffic control signs. Please tell me exactly what is wrong with that.


I cannot believe you are still hanging onto the thought process that there are any of us who do not know it is illegal to place the signs on the ROW; Wow! If I were to say what I am really thinking here, I would surely be banned again.

If you are in agreement with my opinion of how no signs except those of traffic control purposes should be allowed in a highway right of way, then why exactly are you challenging my opinion?

Isn't that a bit contradictory?

On channel 4 this morning, they talked about the political signs in ROW's; they mentioned that in Edmond the code enforcement officer was out pulling them up; they had a guy on screen talking about the "visual pollution" the signs are.

I did not find it strange that nothing was mentioned about any hazards that were created by the placement of the signs in the ROW; I do not remember an instance where they mentioned that it is a violation of the law to put them in the ROW: I would guess they know everyone knows it is against the law.

Maybe you, Bobby, should clue them in to the hazards, so they do not look so foolish to the masses for spending so much time and money just to satisfy the very few who care.

WRITERranger, you ignorant slut. (couldn't resist the SNL point/counterpoint barb)

First, taxpayer funded roadways do not ever at all translate into a venue where any person can simply post his trash right up next to cars whizzing by at 50mph or better. All roadways must be governed by standards where driver safety and traffic movement take precidence over all other considerations.

In your last post you claim that regular commercial business signs that are legally posted within property lines and compliant with local sign ordinances cause traffic accidents. Now please back up that claim with some SPECIFIC PROOF.
Further, please be invited to march into any or all given businesses in Oklahoma City and tell them that their signs are causing traffic accidents and that they need to be immediately removed. See what kind of reaction you will get from businesses that actually obeyed the law.

To repeat further to you, WRITERranger: I'M TALKING ABOUT OBEYING THE %$&@ LAW.

You have no valid stance at all in justifying the placement of political signs within a highway's right of way or even within a utility easement, no matter how angry you get.

Get off of the stupid, idiotic personal attack B.S. and back up your vitriol with some actual substantive reasoning for your pro-"let's stick all our cluttery political trash right by curbside" stance.

You gain absolutely nothing by personally attacking me. The fact remains. It is against the law to put political signs in the highway right of way. The fact remains even if I never ever existed. Is that enough of a clue to you?

Unless you have something of real substance to offer in this discussion besides personal attacks against me I suggest you drop it and go to another thread. Choosing me as the would-be opponent is about as good as propping up a strawman to argue against. I contend it is wholly unacceptable to place ANY kind of signage within a highway ROW other than traffic control signs. Please tell me exactly what is wrong with that.



If you are in agreement with my opinion of how no signs except those of traffic control purposes should be allowed in a highway right of way, then why exactly are you challenging my opinion?

Isn't that a bit contradictory?

Actually, I have filled this thread with substance. You have refused to even consider - or respect - my heartfelt view that the political signs are a visible activity of a thriving democracy. I have argued that, despite 'city ordinances' it is an ages-old activity that has been practiced since our earliest days of only 13 colonies. But to you, that's not "substance." In fact, all you have done is mocked my viewpoint. You turned the thread into some kind of safety thread, which is really stretching it.

You ask for a study to "prove" that Commercial signs (that you make for a living) that clutter the highways and byways of our city cause more accidents than the small political signs during political season. Well, I can't point to any actual studies --- just common sense. When somebody is trying to find a business, they look through a jungle of those ugly signs of all shapes, colors and sizes, all of them vying for the drivers attention. To me, you don't need a study - it's just common sense. Where is your study, by the way, showing that political signs cause traffic accidents?

Since you seem so safety-minded regarding the hazards of political placards; as far as your commercial signs go, have you argued FOR or AGAINST height restrictions for these signs? Your industry has traditionally fought against the restrictions for pure reasons of profit. No studies - but common sense tells me your signs are the real nuisance.

Substance? Read my earlier posts in this very thread. You began to mock my views and I retaliated with anger at your complete lack of respect for a point-of-view that's different from yours.

I'm outa this thread.

-------------------------------

Bobby, I think you're a bit off the mark here. Let me address some of the fundamental problems with the various arguments you'e proposed throughout this thread:

1) It's against the law.
-- Yes, it is against the law, or more specifically, it's against municipal ordinances. The problem is not in determining whether or not it's legal, the problem is in enforcement. You see, unless you can prove that an individual from a certain campaign illegally placed their signs, then all you have is circumstantial evidence. Thus, punitive measures such as fines really aren't going to be an option in most cases because the city can't meet its burden of proof as to who actually committed the crime of placing the signs in the right of way.

Our policemen generally do not consider themselves to be glorified and overdressed trash removal specialists, and when the city only has.. what.. 7 people specifically charged with enforcing the municipal ordinacnes, I'd rather have them removing things which were actually hazardous or harmful to property value before I'd have them working overtime making sure that these campaign signs comport with ordinances. That's just a personal judgment call on my part though. Clearly, Bobby H thinks that these signs are more dangerous than I do. At the end of the day though, the only people whose opinions count are those who are charged with enforcing the laws and every time I drive down Classen, I see them announcing to the world that they simply do not care.

2) Campaign signs placed in the ROW are inherently dangerous.
-- I'm generally pretty good at researchign things. If it's on the internet to be found, I can find it. The only evidence that I could find with my trust google.com that campaign signs posed any sort of danger was various municipal ordinance and state law saying that these signs posed a risk of distracting motorists.

I did find, however an interesting article quoted here:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=109801

the article references a study done by the city of Ontario in which city officials kept track of the number of accidents along a stretch of highway both before and after the installation of a video billboard. They could find no significant (or otherwise) rise in the number of accidents.

I would pose that if a video billboard fails to cause a higher number of accidents that something both smaller and less dramatic would doubtful come anywhere close to doing the same. If you'll accept that argument by extension, I think that it adequately shows that both you and Write are wrong in stating that billboards or campaign signs can be a distracting danger to motorists.

You both asserted as much, but neither of you shows any sort of proof that this was the case (while calling for the other to prove his case).

-- am I missing anything?

I think the bigger issue here is something that I've seen almost any organization faced with. If you're going to have a code,bylaw,rule,policy, etc. either enforce it or get ride of it.

OKC sets up to sweep unsightly signage

October 4, 2007 OKLAHOMA CITY – For the second time this year city workers will pick up and destroy several thousand signs from public rights of way in concentrated sign sweeps, Oklahoma City Hall spokeswoman Kristy Yager said.

They might be someone’s business investment, but they’re still against the law and an eyesore, she said.“It’s simply illegal; there’s no way around it,” she said. “And we’re trying to keep our city clean because it’s a concern that citizens have clearly expressed. People don’t like litter.”

The general rule for city rights of way is that it’s illegal to place signs within 12 feet of a curb or street pavement, although the actual size may vary with the width of the street. Every intersection also has triangular areas between streets that must remain clear for drivers’ line of sight. Public utilities poles, lampposts, street signs and parking meters are also off limits.

The next sign sweep is scheduled for Nov. 5-9. Last year’s fall sweep cleared more than 7,000 signs; the sweep in April yielded a similar amount. The signs taken up included advertisements for diet programs, yard sales and old political campaigns, but the most pervasive continue to be related to property sales.

One of the many “We Buy Houses” sign owners, when called at his advertised phone number, would identify himself by first name only, “Because there are people out there who try to get us in trouble.” Other salespeople contacted through “We Buy Houses” sign phone numbers would not comment or return calls.

At Redbud Property Investments in Oklahoma City, an employee who identified herself only as Jennifer said her company doesn’t use such signs “because there are so many other, more successful ways to get your message out there. And some people don’t like it.” She and other real estate agents said there are dozens of companies in the metro area who use the “We Buy Houses” pitch. Even with market saturation, it’s an effective ploy for some, she said.“

One big issue that real estate investors have is that every time a campaign comes up to elect this or that person, you’ll see a whole lot of signs go up, and the city doesn’t seem to have a problem with those signs,” she said. Dawn Kennedy, chief executive of the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Association of Realtors, said she doesn’t think her organization’s members are involved in illegal sign placement. The association tries to educate its members about city ordinances, she said.

Oklahoma City Councilwoman Ann Simank, who buys and sells homes, said such small signs are more of an eyesore than a legitimate business investment.“We have a lot of complaints that come into city council about these kinds of signs,” she said. “From a business perspective, I’d never use them as a business tactic. There are too many citizens in this city who are aware of junk and debris, and people are pretty leery of anyone who would advertise on a center median.“We get more complaints about how junky these signs look on city easements and utility poles than we do someone calling to say we’ve hurt their business. … In fact, I’ve never had a call about that,” she said. “I think most people who advertise that way are aware that it’s illegal. They pay people to go out and distribute mass amounts of them.”

City workers also pick up illegally placed signs throughout the year, Yager said. If a sign can be tracked back to a nearby business address, workers will try to explain the city ordinances and give the owner an opportunity to correct the matter, she said. Many smaller signs, however, have only telephone numbers for owner identification.

Count me out! I like those little signs.

Just to be sure what you will be picking up, will it be only the small campaign-like signs that are on ROWs, or will it be all advertising including those benches with advertising on them that sit on the ROWs, and how about those realtor signs that happen to be sitting on ROW?

Oh, over on 36th, I saw a sign that advertises a meeting of the residents of the area---Go get it! LOL

This seems to be a thread where it is just a sight nuisance you want to eradicate, but it would seem that public safety being a factor, while you are at it, you might pull some of the trees that have been planted too close to the road and block the view of motorists as they try to come out onto a busy street.

Aww, looks like we have one of the culprits placing those illegal signs.
Poor thing, your business to crappy to pay for advertising?

Y'all should check out (and join) CAUSS
Citizens Against Ugly Street Spam (CAUSS) (http://www.causs.org/)

I've been doing it for years. Just joined the Oklahoma board there.

Man I hate that auto-fill feature on links.

It appears that all communication is open to interpretation. I don't think I mentioned political signs except in the post-election context, and I thought that metro was saying that he didn't approve of them either, but that they were not the target of our project. So in the interest of clarity; the signs that I will be removing during this little outing are the commercial advertising plastic and paper ones about 18" wide and 12" high attached to a metal wire frame or wood stake that are placed near the street and particularly in clusters around intersections that advertise health insurance, Christian singles groups, lawn mowing and all manner of other products and services. I will also remove cardboard boxes and other make-shift signs advertising garage sales, free pets, etc.

Regarding political signs; they are just as illegal when placed in the public r-o-w as any other sign and I don’t like seeing them there. I think their use along streets is a waste of campaign money and they should only be placed in legal locations on private property. Unfortunately, that is not the common practice in Oklahoma City. Hopefully, our effort may bring a little extra attention to this issue of public appearance and more discussion can be had by the political community. I will mention it to the candidates that I support and perhaps at some point in the future, candidates will begin to make public statements early in their campaigns regarding their policy about these signs and progress can be made toward eliminating their improper placement.

writerranger, I have very strong and long considered views about freedom of expression around the world, including the US and look forward to discussing them on this forum in the future, I just don't see this thread as being the place and time IMO.

Political signs in Denver are regulated. No more than 1 per candidate/issue intersection, etc. And they have to be removed by 3 days after election or they get fined.

Now all they need to do is actually enforce that.