Commentary by Frank Schroth — Updated 11/4 @ 3:25pm
The signs referred to in this post have been removed. We did not see any signs on public spaces this morning.
Town Meeting took up the issue of signs in both residential and business districts. It appears some over zealous politicos did not get the memo. Maybe we are mistaken, but are political signs allowed on public space?
The signs may be gone now – thanks to wind and rain; but yesterday morning on an errand to the Fruit Center there were numerous political signs peppering East Milton on the deck and a couple of traffic islands. It is understandable given the traffic that goes through there to put up a sign but probably not advisable. It sets a precedent for a land rush to post signs during a political season on public spaces.
We love the campaign season, and are all for active advocacy and speech but this practice is not a good thing. If we are mistaken on this – our bad; and it really is innocuous at the moment but only because pople are self policing. If political activists believe that property is fair game then those plots will become veritable cabbage patches of political signage in seasons to come.
A town’s interest in reducing clutter and visual blight allows it to ban posting signs on public property. Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984). Problems would arise if the town’s ban were not content neutral, or if the town were selective in its enforcement of the ban.
(Here’s a link to the Supreme Court’s Taxpayers for Vincent opinion: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=466+US+789&hl=en&as_sdt=40000003&case=5319853380466649776 )