Upcoming municipal elections
Now that Labor Day is behind us, and the Greatest College Football Upset in History™ has come and gone, it's time to get ready for elections. Durham's got a primary election coming up in October in which voters will narrow the field of City Council hopefuls from 10 to 6, then in November we'll elect three at-large Council members, and a mayor, as well as decide how much money we want to spend on sidwalks and roads at the city level, and on school construction and a couple of other miscellaneous projects at the county level.
DE is working with other Durham bloggers to bring you a unique perspective on the election which will, we hope, supplement more mainstream coverage, and, if we do it properly, bring some information out to the voters that you might not otherwise get. So stay tuned for that. We should have a list of participating bloggers up shortly.
Meantime, here's a question. As of this morning, signs for three candidates were up around town. Incumbent Council member Diane Catotti and hopeful Farad Ali hit the streets early. Ali's signs make use of graphic elements that are strikingly similar to official Durham markings. (Durham's sign ordinance allows election signs to be posted 45 days in advance of an election. I'll try to get some photos up of Ali's signs in the next day or two).
Thomas Stith's signs have some curious features. First is the timing. Since only Stith and incumbent Mayor Bill Bell have filed for the seat, there will not be a mayoral primary, meaning the mayor's election is still 63 days away. However, the ordinance doesn't say that the candidate has to be on the ballot in the upcoming election, just that the election itself needs to be less than 45 days away. The other factor that catches my eye is the way the sign leaves out the word "Elect." So instead of saying "Elect Thomas Stith Mayor of Durham" it reads "Thomas Stith, Mayor of Durham." Which, at this point at least, he is not. We'll see if this subtle deception has any impact on that segment of the electorate which may not be so fully informed.
UPDATE: Via email, an anonymous source tells me that Stith's signs are in fact in violation of the law regarding the 45 day window, but that no action is planned right now.
That pisses me off. Two years ago, the Duke Park and Old North Durham neighborhood associations posted a number of signs on utility poles around our neighborhoods, advertising our National Night Out event. The notification we received from the enforcement people at the City/County Planning Department was very clear: fines up to $300 per sign per day, if they were not removed within 48 hours of receipt of the notice. Why are the rules different for citizens than they are for politicians?
DE is working with other Durham bloggers to bring you a unique perspective on the election which will, we hope, supplement more mainstream coverage, and, if we do it properly, bring some information out to the voters that you might not otherwise get. So stay tuned for that. We should have a list of participating bloggers up shortly.
Meantime, here's a question. As of this morning, signs for three candidates were up around town. Incumbent Council member Diane Catotti and hopeful Farad Ali hit the streets early. Ali's signs make use of graphic elements that are strikingly similar to official Durham markings. (Durham's sign ordinance allows election signs to be posted 45 days in advance of an election. I'll try to get some photos up of Ali's signs in the next day or two).
Thomas Stith's signs have some curious features. First is the timing. Since only Stith and incumbent Mayor Bill Bell have filed for the seat, there will not be a mayoral primary, meaning the mayor's election is still 63 days away. However, the ordinance doesn't say that the candidate has to be on the ballot in the upcoming election, just that the election itself needs to be less than 45 days away. The other factor that catches my eye is the way the sign leaves out the word "Elect." So instead of saying "Elect Thomas Stith Mayor of Durham" it reads "Thomas Stith, Mayor of Durham." Which, at this point at least, he is not. We'll see if this subtle deception has any impact on that segment of the electorate which may not be so fully informed.
UPDATE: Via email, an anonymous source tells me that Stith's signs are in fact in violation of the law regarding the 45 day window, but that no action is planned right now.
That pisses me off. Two years ago, the Duke Park and Old North Durham neighborhood associations posted a number of signs on utility poles around our neighborhoods, advertising our National Night Out event. The notification we received from the enforcement people at the City/County Planning Department was very clear: fines up to $300 per sign per day, if they were not removed within 48 hours of receipt of the notice. Why are the rules different for citizens than they are for politicians?
Labels: 27701, Durham, elections, local politics
Since 1949, Durhamites have slept soundly, secure in the knowledge that, in our town, erection can be depended upon. Now, thanks to the power of the internets, we can spread that security all over the world.
5 Comments:
It's not just interesting that Stith's campaign is leaving out the preposition "for". He's placing himself ahead of the city by using the phrase "Mayor of Durham". Why not "Durham Mayor"?
When you read a newspaper article, does it ever say, "Mayor of Durham Bill Bell"? No, it says "Durham Mayor Bill Bell", as it should. It's a subtle difference, but it seems to say a lot.
Hey, I'm not just going to be Durham Mayor. I'm going to be Mayor of Durham!
Am I making more of this than it deserves?
By
toastie, at 12:32 AM
I'm not totally clear here - your anonymous source confirms that he's breaking the law, but didn't quote the law. I'd like to see it for myself before I trust someone whose identity I don't know. I can't find this particular sign ordinance on Municode, so if you can quote it, could you?
By
Unknown, at 7:42 AM
19. City Jurisdiction:
Temporary political signs erected in connection with elections or political
campaigns provided that:
a. Such signs are prohibited on utility poles and may not obstruct drivers'
vision clearances at an intersection.
b. Such signs shall not be posted earlier than 45 days prior to a primary,
general or special election and are to be removed within 12 days after the
election.
c. Such signs shall not exceed 8 square feet per sign and not exceed 8 feet in
height.
d. Signs found to be in violation of this Section may be removed by Zoning
Enforcement Officers.
========================
Section 19b of the city/county sign ordinance. go to the city website (durhamnc.gov) and search for sign ordinance.
My reading of it is that signs are OK 45 days before an election. The ordinance does not, as i read it, differentiate between candidates and non-candidates, although common sense would indicate that "Mitt Romney for President" signs in the weeks before Durham's municipal elections would be out of place.
I have emails in to the BoE and the Planning Department asking for clarification.
By
Barry, at 8:03 AM
I can see it both ways. The argument that it does not allow signs for candidates not on the ballot would seem to be troublesome and difficult. Making a legal case for "spirit of the law" is much harder when the language is so clear.
Indeed, another interpretation is that 45 days before AN election (be it a primary or general) begins the election cycle - so if the primary is within 45 days of the general, the cycle starts 45 days prior to the primary for the general.
I think that if the zoning department were to fine Stith, they'd have a very difficult case based on the wording.
It's annoying that this does not appear to be updated in municode...
By
Unknown, at 8:32 AM
I would argue that the words "signs" and "election[s]" in the first sentence of Barry's statute quotation are to be read in the same sense as under part "b," therefore meaning that the sign must be connected to the election. At least I hope so -- otherwise anyone gets to put up any political sign within any 45-day window before any election, and can leave it up afterward for 12 more days. That's almost 2 months of possibly unrelated signage around *any* election.
I like it that signs are to be removed within 12 days, but I don't think that's closely followed. I remember a campaign in SF where the candidate promised to give a nickel (or a quarter -- can't remember which, but this was sometime around 1970, so probably the former) to any group (like, say, the Camp Fire Girls or Cub Scouts) who brought in a sign after the election. IIRC, the candidate (Spadarelli?) lost, but honored his promise, generated a lot of good will, and helped make a cleaner city afterward.
By
Joseph H. Vilas, at 10:45 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home