Driving through cottage country on the weekend gives one a new appreciation for the City of Mississauga sign bylaw.
Many candidates and political observers see the sign bylaw as yet another weapon in the plot to keep incumbent councillors cloaked in their armour of invincibility; the theory being that limiting the placement of signs to private property increases the advantage to the already-elected, who generally have long lists of supporters who live on prominent corners from their previous campaigns.
There are many reasons why incumbents have a return rate of well over 90 per cent, starting with the fact that municipalities are relatively stable and relatively well-run political entities that don’t suffer the startling changes in policy direction characterized by party politics.
Even if one accepts the proposition that the sign bylaw is just another weapon in the establishment quiver, it is still far preferable to restrict their locations than it is to have every street look like Dundas St. E. with its jumble of jarring, warring furniture outlet monikers.
Travelling back and forth to the Kawarthas this year, it was weird to see election signs all over fence lines and in cornfields months and months before nomination day ever hove into sight. Are there that many farmers who support specific politicians or are they just too busy to tear down the signs that candidates plaster on their property?
Most importantly, there is a real safety issue involved in the banning of election signs from public lands.
Nothing makes you angrier than sitting at an intersection and having to peer around a dozen election signs to see if you can proceed without taking your life in your hands. Some of the signs will undoubtedly proclaim that the candidate whose signs is blocking your view is in favour of “safe streets.”
With the new world of technology, where most candidates have their own web sites and where the roster of candidates is available by clicking a couple of times on the municipal web site, do we really need election signs at all?
Comments (6)
If you want to hear something funny there are two large signs saying to "vote x for ward 10" posted on a major intersection.
(i won't give the name of the candidate)
The thing is that that intersection is nowhere near where ward 10 is! It's at least two kilometers away!
If the candidates don't know which wards there in good luck to the voters come election day.
Posted by OJ | October 20, 2006 8:01 PM
Posted on October 20, 2006 20:01
And speaking of the sign bylaw, last federal election there were two nearby candidates who didn't take down their sign(or have their staff take down the signs) 2-1/2 months after the election. And not with election signs but don't get me started on garage sale signs. And that's all I'm going to say on this topic.
Posted by Pat | October 16, 2006 2:46 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 14:46
I agree that it's a pleasure not to have to look at election signs on our street corners and boulevards. But tell me, why does the stretch of Burnhamthorpe near Central Parkway West always seem to be exempt from the bylaw?
For as long as I remember, regardless of whether it's a federal, provincial or municipal election, the boulevards on the south side are always awash in Tory Blue. Do the owners of Tim Hortons, McDonald's, Red Lobster, and the other store owners always support conservative/Conservative candidates? Ron Starr seems to have inherited the mantle in this election.
What gives?
Posted by George Winter | October 11, 2006 11:34 AM
Posted on October 11, 2006 11:34
John,
One of the terrific things about your BLOG is that you offer so much for readers to think about.
I thought about something you wrote last night and again this morning. I realized the truth in the most important point you made in your entire entry.
This part:
"There are many reasons why incumbents have a return rate of well over 90 per cent, starting with the fact that municipalities are relatively stable and relatively well-run political entities that don’t suffer the startling changes in policy direction characterized by party politics."
In my commentary to "THEY'RE OFF", I wrote:
"There has been talk about going to a party system for municipal government. Based on what I've finally woken up to, there is no more powerful reason why a party system is needed than challengers (all with limited or no budgets at all) having to face such Goliaths."
John, you made me realize that I was wrong about the value in municipal politics going to a party system --and for the very reason you mentioned.
As you observed, there is indeed such potential for "startling changes in policy directions characterized by party politics" that you've now helped me see that municipal elections are a "haven" of sanctity by comparison to party politics.
All along I've been complaining in here about the snoozing of the public in municipal matters. Your comments have forced me to conclude (reluctantly) that perhaps, just perhaps, citizen snoozing/apathy is a good thing.
Signed,
The (Wake me when it's over) Mississauga Muse
Posted by The Mississauga Muse | October 11, 2006 6:39 AM
Posted on October 11, 2006 06:39
John, KUDOS!
"incumbent councillors cloaked in their armour of invincibility".... "cloaked in their armour of invincibility". OOOOOOooo, NICE!
Signed,
The (If there's a sign bylaw, why are there so many signs strapped to lamp posts advertising $55 moving?) Mississauga Muse
Posted by The Mississauga Muse | October 10, 2006 7:11 PM
Posted on October 10, 2006 19:11
Great Article John
I agree with your article "Election Signs" they should be totaly banned.And I have said this for years.
Roy Willis
Candidate for Mayor
City of Mississauga
Posted by Roy Willis | October 10, 2006 6:41 PM
Posted on October 10, 2006 18:41