As the 2007 election season heads into its furious finale, political signs are squeezed tighter and tighter together in the candidates’ attempt to seize that extra vote.
Each fall, candidates consider whether to put out signs, how many to put out, how much to spend and whether to put them on private or public property. At the same time, communities decry sign pollution and debate possible restrictions. State law allows communities to make restrictions, but in Westbrook, it’s an issue that remains unsettled.
“I’d be the first one to advocate for limiting signs,” said Westbrook Mayor Bruce Chuluda, who is running for re-election this November. “But I don’t think we’ll ever get people to consent on that.”
Chuluda said the idea of limiting signs to private property may help what some consider a visual blight during election season. Jim Violette, who’s running against Chuluda for mayor, said it’s something he could probably support, too.
“The key piece is when you have (political signs) on private land. It shows people support you,” Violette said.
In the wake of some confusion from the city clerk’s office in Westbrook last May, where a number of political referendum signs were taken down in a perceived violation of state law, then put back up when it was confirmed there had been no violation, the city began looking at an ordinance to clarify and regulate the use of political signs. The ordinance was tabled in September by the city council amid concerns that it was too close to the November elections to dig into such a political issue.
The ordinance Westbrook was considering would restrict signs from being erected more than 32 days before an election, and would require they be taken down within 48 hours after. The ordinance had been in place previously, but was omitted in a 2004 revision of ordinances. Additionally, the new ordinance would require all signs to have contact information on them.
Sign ordinances in nearby communities vary. Brunswick has an ordinance that limits election and referendum signs to private property, and no sooner than 60 days before an election. The signs must be removed within five days after the election.
In Cape Elizabeth, where an ordinance restricts sign sizes, the candidates for the school board and town council have taken a different approach: All but one of the candidates signed a “sign disarmament pledge,” as Mary Ann Lynch, a candidate for council, called it.
Lynch said she thinks most people read newspapers to get the names of people running for office, but the pledge “is in no way a condemnation of people who choose to use signs.”
Greg Altznauer, another candidate for Cape Elizabeth Town Council, signed the pledge last election, but this year he’s the only one who didn’t.
“I’m running against two incumbents who have name recognition,” Altznauer said. “Not having signs favors the incumbent.”
However, Altznauer is conflicted about putting them up. “Aesthetically, environmentally, they’re a form of pollution,” he said, but it could help him win the race.
“Some people know you, but some people don’t,” said Westbrook’s Violette, who also recognizes political signs as an important part of name recognition.
Chuluda is of a similar mind, but said it might be a “sad commentary” if names need to be plastered at every intersection so people know who the politicians are.
Candidates also must deal with the impact weather and vandalism have on their signs.
“Probably the biggest hassle is signs being torn down,” Violette said. “It’s a frustration.”
Some accusations have surfaced that signs are being ripped down with political motivations, but both Violette and Chuluda said the most likely culprits are kids and the weather. Cheaper signs tend to get knocked down by the wind and rain, but sturdy signs are prime targets for vandals.
“You try to be frugal,” said Chuluda.
Having run for a number of terms, Chuluda has been able to keep a sign stockpile, collecting old pieces of plywood and reusing as many paper signs as he can salvage, but he still spends “a couple hundred or less.” When he first got started running for office, he said the cost was quite a bit more.
He said he’s been “chastised” by friends, however, for putting too few signs out.
Violette has spent more than $1,000 this year on signs, purchasing some 275 quality paper signs and 45 wooden signs that will last. And he’s spent an average of 15 hours a week getting the signs out and maintaining them.
When it’s all over on Nov. 6, there is no ordinance in Westbrook that requires the signs to be taken down in any time frame, but the state requires they come down within a week of the election. Each political party in Westbrook sends people out to remove the signs.
“It’s a lot easier to take them down,” said Chuluda.
Violette said an ordinance to get them all down within 48 hours would be a good thing.
“People want them out of their sight,” he said.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
