The Boston Globe reports that the The Newton City Council recently changed the city regulations governing non-commercial signs,
Under the previous rules political lawn signs had a window of time, before and after elections, that they could be displayed. Under the new rules political lawn sign can stay up forever. This is a boon for procrastinating homeowners who don’t get around to taking their old signs down after the election.
The changes to the regulations were due to first amendment issues that were raised in a legal case filed against the city by longtime Newton political activist Martina Jackson. Jackson had ignored the regulations and had a “who’s who display of signs for state and national issues” displayed on her front lawn. A neighbor complained to the city, the city ordered the signs to be removed, and Jackson sued the city in court and won.
The new looser sign regulations just passed by the City Council are in response to this legal decision.
With the time limits on election signs now dropped, Ms Jackson will be free to leave those signs up as long as she wants. I’m also looking forward to some enterprising Newton homeowner to open their own Newton Lawn Museum of Political Signs – a nice drive-by historic attraction for the city.
Ugh. I’m sure this is the right answer legally, but it was certainly nice to have an election “season”. I personally find constant lawn signs to be ugly, and self-defeating. At some point they are just decorations and I don’t process that they support a candidate or a cause. I mean, do I really need to know which 12 city councilors my neighbor supports 2 years in advance?
Curious if this also means the size limit has been eliminated? Or the rule about multiple signs on the same property?
I hope political campaigns still collect signs after the election as usual, except for the diehards who insist on leaving the signs up.
Shorter summary Fig Post:
This is why we can’t have nice things. Signs are ugly. Think of your neighbors too. Be reasonable and keep them up around an election.
The Globe article mentioned that the Council also approved an amendment proposed by Lisle Baker that limits the sign size to no more than 3′ high or 3′ wide
On a personal level, I like Lisle Baker. He’s a true gentleman who has done a lot for Newton. But Councilor Baker is also a law professor who knew darn well that the old lawn sign ordinance was unconstitutional. He never did a thing about it until Martina Jackson sued the city to stand up for her constitutional rights.
The new sign ordinance he’s authored, along with fellow Ward 7 councilor Marc Laredo, is also similar to ordinances in other municipalities that have previously been found unconstitutional. Why are these councilors so gung-ho to infringe on a citizen’s right to put a campaign sign on their own lawn? Easy answer… political survival!
Baker and Laredo understand the power of lawn signs in Newton elections. They both would like to immunize themselves from challengers through limitations on lawn signs. That’s why they both stood silently while the city enforced an unconstitutional ordinance for decades. And it’s why they have created a new sign ordinance that once again places questionable restrictions on their political challengers.
@Mike Striar – I definitely get your concerns about the free speech issue but the motivations you’re ascribing to Councilors Baker and Laredo just sound silly to me.
Whether or not people can put up political lawn signs when there is no election coming up, or whether they put up signs bigger that 3′ x 3′, wouldn’t make a difference one way with these councilors fending off any future potential challengers.
My neighbor just put up two Trump signs. Neighbors gonna love it.
Ken: I believe the phrase that comes to mind is “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”. For me it doesn’t matter what is on the sign, they just get tiresome if left up 24/7/365. Although I admit if I was Martina Jackson’s neighbor, I’d be tempted to put signs all around my property protesting the sign law. ;)
And we reported this:
https://figcitynews.com/2022/07/does-size-matter/
@Amy Mah Sangiolo: Who wrote the piece you linked to, and why is that not publicly posted? Should we assume you are writing everything?
It seems to be the norm on the site, can you clarify why the creators made the decision to have anonymous posts? I read the About page but don’t see anything about a rationale for anonymous postings.
Your newsletter has always been greatly appreciated and I’m looking forward to seeing Fig City News grow. Understandably, especially on contentious issues, I’m curious about the authorship of various articles.
As a political lawn sign junkie during election season, I’m disappointed in this decision. Beyond the 45-day sign limit, they look unsightly and make the city look trashy when left up too long. Thanks to Councilor Baker for taking the initiative to set some limits on the situation.
Take a look at NH and Maine if you want to see the direction we’re heading in.
People with prime Newton traffic view points should lease out political sign spots 24/7/365. $10 month. $100 year if paid in full.
In this day and age it surprises me that any progressive thinking person would value aesthetics above the importance of participating in the democratic process.
Voting rights do not begin on election day. We should reject all things that suppress voter participation, and that is exactly what Newton’s old sign ordinance did. For decades it unconstitutionally violated the rights of voters and all Newton residents to freely express their political beliefs. It was a clear violation of the First Amendment and I am grateful to Martina Jackson for challenging the ordinance.
In my opinion, it should be a felony for any public official to knowingly and/or deliberately violate the constitutional rights of its citizens through an abuse of the legislative system.
Spot on busy Watham St. $50 mo for an exclusive. Enquire within.
btw Signs don’t always indicate support. I’m happy to host a candidates sign as long as I think they’re honest, with our best interest at heart – Even if I plan to vote for their competition!
The only time I see people with election signs outside of that particular election cycle is when they’re Trump signs. I seldom see supporters of other candidates with constant year-round signs.
I am a neighbor of Martina and I have a prime corner location on Lowell with much car and foot traffic. In sixteen years we put a sign up once, but with inflation as it is maybe I should rent the lawn. $100 is far to low…I am thinking $500 for the political season three months prior to the election and $1000 for year round placement.
@Jerry– I would suggest that the only “silly” thing, is creating a new, constitutionally questionable zoning ordinance for a problem that does not exist. When was the last time you saw a local candidate in Newton displaying a lawn sign larger than 3’x3′? I believe the correct answer is “never.” So what purpose does the new ordinance serve other than to protect the two incumbents who wrote it? Maybe Councilor Baker or Councilor Laredo will comment? I’d enjoy hearing their explanation of why they allowed an unconstitutional ordinance to remain on the books during their entire tenure in Newton politics.
We’ve never see signs larger than 3 x 3 from local candidates because they were not allowed under the old ordinance either.
And WHY were they not allowed under the old ordinance? Because the entire ordinance was designed by Aldermen in order to insulate themselves from election opponents. That’s why the law stayed on the books in Newton, even after similar laws were struck down as unconstitutional.
Lisle Baker is a law professor. Marc Laredo is an attorney. Both councilors should have known the ordinance was unconstitutional, but neither did a thing about it. Now they are trying to preserve one element of the old ordinance [size], which has also been successfully challenged in other places. There is an inherent conflict of interest when incumbent politicians pass laws restricting the ability of opponents to run against them.
Most of us in Newton bemoan the lack of candidates for public office. Many of our city councilors run unopposed. The expense of running for office is an obstacle for new candidates. The least expensive option for a political challenger are lawn signs. Restrict lawn signs, and you restrict a challenger’s ability to run an effective campaign.
Newton doesn’t have a local newspaper for new candidates to advertise in. We’re all pretty sick of the endless mailers we get from candidates. Radio and TV ads are too expensive for a City Council election. Lawn signs are the single most effective way for a council challenger to demonstrate they have public support prior to an election….
So why do incumbent councilors get to make the rules regarding their opponent’s lawn signs?
Why does Newton even need an ordinance restricting the constitutionally protected free speech that political lawn signs represent?
Are large political lawn signs really an issue in Newton?
We all recognize voter suppression techniques when we see them being used in other places like Texas, and Alabama. The Newton City Council should be ashamed of themselves passing a new, constitutionally questionable ordinance that benefits only the incumbent office holders who wrote it. Shame on us for letting them get away with it here in our own community.
Mike are you guaranteeing that more lawn signs will mean more candidates? I think that may be the number 7 reason why more candidates don’t run.
If you really think that a majority of residents want more lawn signs why not start a petition to put a vote on the ballot?
The city council is only following what the public wants. Your referendum question would fail miserably. Would you still be blaming the city council for “voter suppression” then?
As you enter Newton from Wellesley on Washington St, and from Boston on Comm. Ave, the City of Newton has set up large electronic signs of the type normally associated with road construction messages. The City is using these huge signs as a Help Wanted ad for crossing guards.
Why on Earth would City Councilors restrict the First Amendment rights of voters to post political lawn signs on their own property, while at the same time ignoring giant electronic Help Wanted ads that the City is planting on public roadways?
In my opinion, key members of the City Council have focused on lawn signs in order to restrict the ability of opponents to effectively run against them. Even if Councilors had the best of intentions, there is the appearance of self-serving impropriety in their passing a constitutionally questionable restriction on political lawn signs. They should rethink what they have done and reverse course.
Mike first amendment rights regarding political signs are not unlimited just like various types of free speech are restricted. Why you would equate an advertisement seeking school crossing guards with political signage is a mystery to me