Garamendi hits sign snafu in Oakley
By Lisa Vorderbrueggen
Thursday, June 18th, 2009 at 12:22 pm in Congressional District 10.
Garamendi sign at the corner of Lone Tree and Putnam Way in Antioch
The campaign of 10th Congressional District candidate and Lt. Governor John Garamendi flooded the district with dozens of signs this week.
But some folks are not happy.
Oakley city offices are fielding complaints from residents who said the Gararmendi campaign failed to obtain permission to place the signs on their properties. One of the signs even went up on land where the owner supports one of Garmendi’s opponents, state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord.
The presence of a sign on your property usually indicates support for that candidate, although some landowners allow all candidates to use a particularly visible street corner or fenceline.
A Garamendi spokesman blamed a “zealous volunteer” and promised to remove any offending signs.
Which is a bit odd because a different Garamendi representative told Oakley City Manager Bryan Montgomery that the glitch originated with a hired sign firm. (This company will no doubt be surprised to hear that it has become a volunteer organization.)
The other issue with Garamendi’s signs in Oakley involves the city’s political sign ordinance, which bars posting of campaign signs more than 90 days before an election. Under the First Amendment, cities cannot prohibit the signs or dictate the content but they can regulate the location, timing and size.
There is no election date, so Garamendi is technically breaking the city’s law.
On the other hand, there could be an election within three months and that puts the city into a gray area. The U.S. Senate has not yet confirmed Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo, as Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, which will trigger her resignation and the election to select her replacement.
“We are less concerned about the 90-day period than we are the issue of the signs being placed on private property without the owners’ permission,” Montgomery said.
The appearance of the signs does answer the question of when Garamendi would open an official congressional campaign account. He initially said his lawyers told him he could not legally raise or spend money outside of a limited exploratory committee on a race that did not technically exist.
That didn’t stop most of his opponents, who have had committees for weeks.
No word on why Garamendi changed his mind. But according to the Federal Election Commission website, Garamendi created a federal account and filed his candidate’s intent statement on June 1.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
June 18th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Update: Claycord hit on this issue, too — http://claycord.blogspot.com/2009/06/garamendi-signs-are-they-illegal.html
June 18th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Claycord and others have had discussion about the legality of campaign signs.
Here are some facts about campaign signs.
Yes, Caltrans bans the placement of campaign signs prior to 90 days before an election. But that applies only to state-owned right-of-way. It has no jurisdiction over private property.
Most cities and counties have ordinances, which dictate the size, location and timing of campaign signs. They cannot ban them, as they fall under First Amendment rights to free speech. The ordinances usually specify what types of fines or penalties may be levied.
The state Fair Political Practices Commission does not regulate the placement, size or timing of campaign signs nor does the Federal Election Commission. Those agencies have oversight on the content of the signs, i.e., disclosure rules, etc., but they have no jurisdiction over how cities/counties regulate them.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Lisa,
I was wondering what the requirement is to have the signs removed after the election. In the last two elections, Mark DeSaulnier has not taken down his signs for months and months after the election.
I understand that a few get missed in the clean-up, but he blatenly fails to follow the city ordinances to remove campaign signs, and nobody does anything about it. I saw dozens of his signs up in Concord and Walnut Creek after the last primary and again in the General Election. What makes him so special?
June 18th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
The rules vary come town to town as to when the signs must come down.
Oakley, for example, requires them to come down 10 days after the election.
It’s up the city to go after candidates who fail to remove their signs. But it is probably not a high priority for most communities.
June 18th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Good Lord, Garamendi has run for every office within a 100 mile radius.
You’d think he’d know the rules by now. And the difference between out of control volunteers and a paid sign company.
June 18th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I didn’t know so many people in Oakley could read.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Not only does Mr. Garamendi ignore the rules in Oakley, but is also in violation of city ordinances in Walnut Creek and Concord. County ordinances also prohibit posting before an election has been called.
The signs are coming down. Maybe Garamendi would know the rules if he lived in the district he is trying to represent.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:56 am
The questions about the signs have not been fully answered.
Here are some questions:
1. On public lands: parks, traffic medians, canal crossings, bridges, over passes
what are the rules?
2. All other lands are by definition PRIVATE lands. Is it necessary to obtain and maintain the written approval of the land owner and the current occupant, or is it the rule that that the sign can be placed and then only by objection brought down?
the reality with political signs, and we see this with the Garamendi people, is that they have these massive 6′x4′ and greater size signs going up on what appears to be foreclosed or vacant land that is private but not occupied. This is clearly done with out the PRIOR approval of the owners.
Is this legal? Probably not.
Can someone other than the property owner take action?
For example, can a City claim that the signs represent Blight when placed without written recorded approval and take action in absentia of the land owner?
Those are the real question.
June 21st, 2009 at 9:35 am
Many, many signs were put up along Contra Costa Blvd.in Concord and Pleasant Hill, including on our flag pole without our permission. The flag pole is well onto our business property.