Signs don’t vote – but they seem to

October 3, 2009
By

The city is awash in political signage – a sure sign that politics is still alive in this city.

Many, many people question the effectiveness of political signage – and many others abhor it and would like to do away with it.

Some believe it is the natural expression of political intent. Others believe it is worse than gutter trash spoiling an otherwise clean and orderly city.

Signage is not offensive. No one has to put up a sign unless they want to on their property – a property owner has the right to do with his or her property whatever they want within reason.

That being the case, there remains the aesthetic question about political signage and the fact that the signs don’t vote.

Aesthetically, the signs are all a failure, even the well made signs with lovely splashes of color and bold lettering for all to see. The political signage does not improve the aesthetic the community tries to convey.

As for the signs not voting – well – they do not.

There have been candidates with thousands of signs and some with almost none and the almost none candidate has won.

On the other hand, there are the candidates with many signs more than everyone else who have won commandingly.

At some point, the city should consider putting an end to political signage.

After all, putting an end to political signs will not put an end to politics in this city.

  • Edith LaCroix

    Signs are fine but I do object to the ones that are as large as billboards.

Recent Activity

Full Print Edition