Fred Couzens/VIEWOne political sign was planted in the state right of way along U.S. Highway 93 at Veterans Memorial Drive. A March 6 letter to candidates from the city indicated that campaign signs are never allowed on public property.
Advertisement
Mayoral and council candidates ignited a controversy in late February that has roared on for five weeks over the placement of campaign signs, many of which violated the city's sign ordinance.
The brouhaha between political activists and the city even reached the Nevada Secretary of State's office when a letter was e-mailed on March 10 claiming, among other things, that the city had willfully failed to enforce its own sign ordinance "in a reasonable and timely manner."
As of early last week, Secretary of State Ross Miller's office had yet to officially respond to the charges brought by local community activist Sherman Rattner, however Rattner said a letter had been promised.
"Campaign signs on public rights of way by the current city council members and in a few instances by other candidates is both a violation of the Boulder City sign ordinance and represents an impermissible use, promotion and appearance of endorsement of the candidate by the government of Boulder City," Rattner wrote to Miller. "Given...the act of placing the signs by the City Council members appears to be part of a willful disregard for the law, and the delay by the city to enforce the law is clearly designed to benefit those council members running for election.
"The offending signs will now effectively be allowed to remain in place for nearly a month and potentially far longer. The damage is done and the City Council and its officials have already done their worst in undermining a fair election process."
A law governing signs that became effective on Nov. 30, 2005, requires that noncommercial message signs, such as campaign signs, be set back one foot from the property line in residential zones.
All three council members now running for election -- Karla Burton, Mike Pacini and Roger Tobler -- voted for the new sign ordinance. When it was discovered by some local residents -- several of whom have publicly declared their intent to remove the three incumbent council members -- that Burton, Pacini and Tobler had campaign signs attached to block walls abutting city property that appeared to violate the new law, the e-mails and questions started flying.
According to Community Development Director Brok Armantrout, though, when it comes to block walls and city property, what you see is not necessarily what you get.
"Without a proper survey, it is impossible to tell where the property line actually is," Armantrout e-mailed to Sandra Reuther on March 5 in response to her e-mailed questions. "The general rule of thumb...is correct to some degree -- the platted maps with the County Recorder show the property line beginning approximately one foot (and up to seven feet in some areas) behind the anticipated location of the sidewalk (meaning the sidewalk, if constructed properly, would be at least one foot away from the edge of the right of way).
"It has been my observation as I review aerial photography with property lines overlain that sidewalks are not necessarily located in the proper location - or fences for that matter."
Armantrout said surveyors make mistakes all the time. Even the sidewalk that abuts the block wall next to the L.A. Water & Power Building -- the site of three campaign signs that appear to violate the setback requirement -- is 18 inches onto private property, according to Armantrout, which makes the sign placement legal.
After Rattner, Reuther and others pressed Armantrout on the campaign sign placement issue, the director sent a letter to all candidates on March 6 reminding them of the restrictions contained in the law.
"The city has received several complaints about the possible improper display or placement of campaign signs," and, as he wrote, "it appears that we may not have provided enough information to you or your campaign to ensure proper sign placement. I recognize that several signs have been placed improperly due to misunderstandings, and that some time may be necessary to find alternative locations."
His reminders, in general, are that "Campaign signs are never allowed upon public property, (which) includes all street rights of way, sidewalk, grass strip between the sidewalk and curb and street medians, parks, schools, golf courses, cemeteries, airport, water tanks, street lights, utility poles, etc. and lands owned by the city, county, state and federal governments; campaign signs need to be set back one foot from the property line; in residential areas only 18 square feet of campaign signage is allowed per lot; and campaign signs are only allowed on private property with the owner's approval."
He also gave candidates a 10-day deadline to correct the unlawful sign placements, which expired on March 16. As of March 19, a number of signs had been removed from block walls and other questionable locations, however several remained in place, including one on state right of way near U.S. Highway 93 and Veterans Memorial Drive and another two on city-owned property along Buchanan Boulevard -- all three of which named incumbent councilmen. Also, more than a dozen campaign signs along Nevada Highway from Buchanan Boulevard to Gingerwood Street are in the state right of way.
"If (campaign signs) are in the right of way, we'll take them down immediately," Armantrout said on March 19. "If they're not in the right of way, we'll contact the property owner and give them a three-day notice to correct and if they don't, we'll issue them a citation. To save time, when we notice the property owners, we'll notify the candidates too. By the end of the week, all the property owners will be noticed."
The citation would be issued to the property owner, not the candidate, unless it was proven they placed the sign. The property owner will be cited for violating the city's zoning ordinance, which carries a penalty of up to a $1,000 or six months imprisonment, or both upon conviction.
Also, each day the violation occurs represents a separate and actionable offense. As of midday March 21, the campaign signs in the rights of way were still up.
With the primary election day just a week away -- early voting started March 17 -- it is not likely anyone will challenge enforcement of the law any further. And if someone were to challenge it, the city apparently would not want any part of it.
"It's not wise to spend $3,000 (for a survey) for a $50 sign," Armantrout said.
Pacini said late last week that if the signs were in the wrong place it was not on purpose.
"If it's wrong then they'll just move it down or find some other location," he said. "I don't specifically remember (the setback law), but I will now."
Archived Editions| Advertising | Contact The Staff
