Political Signs Quickly Becoming Public Nuisance
Eric Ortner
North Buffalo Rocket / West Side TimesJanuary 2000: BUFFALO - In a democracy, it is important to express one’s opinions about political candidates to a certain extent. However, as with all political views and issues, there is a time when these opinions become irrelevant, and to a certain extent even taboo. Such is the case with political signs. Although there is no official law requiring property owners to remove the outdated signs, there once was. This has left a few elected officials and constituents scratching their heads asking why.
This unoccupied building on Grant Street is an eye sore in more ways than one. The political signs definitely don't alleviate the problem. In fact, they could be seen as just a different medium of graffiti. photo Eric Ortner
The original ordinance was in section 387 subsection 25 of the City of Buffalo's Code Book. In it there was a brief, but very informative explanation of the regulations regarding political signs. It read, (1) The permission or consent of the owner of the property upon which the political sign is to be placed must be received prior to placement. (2) The political sign shall not be attached, placed or maintained more than one hundred twenty (120) days before any general election nor more than sixty (60) days before any primary election to which the political sign relates.
These are the sort of issues which usually make for controversy at the start of an election and 1999’s was no exception. In fact, during the primaries for the 1999 Niagara District Common Council race there was some question raised about the violation of this code. This was because the City of Buffalo sent an outdated version to many candidates. Legislator Al DeBenedetti was one such recipient.
However, due to possible conflicts with first amendment rights, this outdated code 387-25 was refined effective August 6, 1998. Gary Ziolkowski, the City of Buffalo’s Director of Inspections Licenses and Permits further explained, "There was a change in that ordinance and basically it was removed. There is now an ordinance, 387-25 about signs on public property.”The new ordinance simply states, No person shall place, attach or maintain any sign of any nature on any property belonging to the City of Buffalo without first obtaining the consent of the City of Buffalo in the form of a permit, lease, contract, specific authorizing resolution of Common Council or as otherwise provided in this chapter.
Gary Ziolkowski further explained the new ordinance by saying, “It can (stay up forever) unless the sign is too large or obstructing; then it would fall under the sign ordinance.” There is actually a very large code regarding signs in general in the City of Buffalo Code Book, but political signs really are not covered. However, the old code stated, All political signs shall be removed within thirty (30) days after the general election.
Legislator Al DeBenedetti is somewhat disturbed by the lack of cohesive coverage which exists today in regards to political signs for a couple of reasons. For starters, the City sent him a copy of the antiquated code at the beginning of the 1999 election. However, he is more upset because without the code there are political signs posted all over vacant buildings and there is nothing to ensure that they will be removed. DeBene-detti said, “We obviously need this law because it is well after the election and the signs are still up.” He added, “I really don’t like seeing political signs around. I go out every two years (after election time) and make sure that my signs are down in a timely fashion.”
This is an issue where it is impossible to single out one former candidate because most are guilty, both the winners and the losers. Just wandering around the various streets makes this painfully clear. So with so many vacant buildings around the city covered in political propaganda it will be difficult to have them all removed.
There is a loophole though. A sign can be determined a public nuisance, and then the city can step in. According to Darryl McPherson, Assistant Corporation Council in the City’s Department of Law, “Only if the property (with a political sign) were overgrown could the city take action on the property, and bill the owner for doing it. But that is related primarily to vacant properties that are overgrown.” He continued, “In that case you would have to call the City, and an inspector could look at the property and make a determination that the property had been abandoned. The inspector would have to make the determination that the sign was no longer functioning as a sign but was debris. Then we would send out a notice to the owner that there was debris on the property and if they don’t clean it up in five days, the City would clean it up for them and send a bill to the owner.”
However, if a property owner takes good care of the property and decides to leave the sign up for a long period of time, there is nothing the City can do. The best way to handle issues like this though, is for the property owner to take the sign down him or herself.
The election is long over and the newly elected officials legally took office on the 31st. Therefore political signs' relevance have long since passed, and they are quickly becoming a public nuisance.
