Signs—Seven Years Later

At some time in the remote past, probably before I moved to Richmond, the Richmond City Council, our governing body, decided that advertising signs were ugly. And so they passed an ordinance declaring that such signs appearing on public property were a nuisance. That ordinance is currently in the City Code and either appears in Chapter 19, Article II of the Code (as found on the city’s website) or Chapter 38, Article III, Division 2 (as published by Municode.) It appears that the Municode version is based on a later enactment so I will reference that one.

Section 38-113 of the Code provides:

“It shall be unlawful for any person to paint, mark or write on or post or otherwise affix to or upon a public way or fixture thereon any sign or other form of commercial, noncommercial, or political advertising, promotion, solicitation, communication or display. It shall furthermore be unlawful for any person to cause or, with knowledge, permit such actions to be taken on such person's behalf.” (Certain types of signs are exempt from the ordinance under section 38-114.)

The penalty provision of the ordinance provides that anyone convicted of violating the ordinance shall be fined not less than $10 or more than $50. Each sign is considered a separate violation and each day it is displayed is considered a separate violation. Section 38-112.

Additional bite for the statute is contained in section 38-115, which states:

“Any violation of this division is hereby declared to be a nuisance. No person shall have any legal right to the continued presence of a sign in a public way in violation of this division, nor shall there be any legal remedy against any person solely for the removal from a public way of a sign which is in violation of this division. Any person may abate the nuisance created by a violation of this division without liability for doing so. If abatement is made by the city, the reasonable costs incurred in removal may be assessed against any person responsible for or benefited by the violation, and such costs shall be collected in the same manner as city taxes. For a willful violation, the city shall be entitled to recover costs, the reasonable value of attorney's fees, and punitive damages in any proceeding which it may bring to enjoin future violations.”

One thing about this nuisance ordinance seems very clear to me—it is never (or hardly ever) enforced. There are commercial advertising signs posted all over the city and they sit there indefinitely with no consequences. In the fall there are myriad political signs posted on the public way, many remaining after Election Day; and nobody seems to pay any fines and nobody seems to be billed for the cost of city employees removing those signs after the election is over.

As a lawyer, I get very upset when the legislature (in this case the City Council) goes to the trouble of enacting a law but nobody enforces it. Such abdication contributes to contempt for law by those who become aware of it. And, in the case of the sign ordinance, failure to enforce the law also deprives the city of potentially significant amounts of revenue. As this maven said seven years ago when first noticing the city’s failure to enforce the sign ordinance:

“From the fact that the city did not enforce the ordinance with respect to political signs erected during the recent campaign, I must assume that the city government is flush with money. Why else would it deliberately refuse to assess fines or collect the cost of removal from the various campaign committees that planted all the signs? When the next budget cycle comes around, let’s all remember the thousands of dollars that the city did not collect this election year.” 1

Signs (part 2)

I was driving around yesterday and I saw city workers harvesting the abundant crop of political signs. I will be glad to see the signs go, but I am not at all happy that the city chose not to enforce the anti-sign ordinance weeks or months ago. I presume that when a legislative body enacts a law, it intends for the law to be enforced. The ordinance, which is codified in Chapter 19 of the City Charter entitled “Nuisances and environmental control,” was enacted, I presume, to avoid the visual pollution in the city caused by everybody putting up signs all over the place.

The law declares all signs on public property to be nuisances, and provides that both the individual who erects the sign and the person or organization on whose behalf the sign is erected are guilty of violating the provision. The ordinance provides for a fine of between $10 and $25 for each sign posted, for each day that it is posted. It also states that if the city is forced to remove the signs it can collect the cost of removing the sign from the person or organization who posted it.

From the fact that the city did not enforce the ordinance with respect to political signs erected during the recent campaign, I must assume that the city government is flush with money. Why else would it deliberately refuse to assess fines or collect the cost of removal from the various campaign committees that planted all the signs? When the next budget cycle comes around, let’s all remember the thousands of dollars that the city did not collect this election year.

Sign, Sign, Everywhere a Sign

I know it’s not spring ‘cause the days are getting shorter. It’s also getting pretty cold at night, which feels more like fall than spring. But, everywhere I look I see these colorful rectangular growths jutting out of the ground. Most are blue, some are white, and even some are red. And they have things written on them—people’s names. In this part of Richmond, the blue ones either say George Allen for Senate, Jim Webb for Senate, or Jim Nachman for Congress. The white ones either say George Braxton for School Board or Jerry Miller for School Board. The only red ones say Eric Cantor for Congress. It’s election time in Richmond

For a while, all the signs were the same size, maybe 18 inches by 30 inches (I’m just guessing). Now I’m beginning to see all these mega-signs. They are at least four times the size of the other ones. The first mega-signs I saw bore the names of Republicans George Allen and Eric Cantor. Why would you think Republicans need all these super-size signs? Can it be that they are lacking in vision? Or maybe they feel a bit inadequate. Maybe they have a need to brag that “mine is bigger than yours.” Or just maybe they have too much money to spend between now and Election Day. Oh, now one of our school board candidates, Jerry Miller, is also using these mega-signs. School Board elections are supposed to be nonpartisan, but the super- size signs lead me to the conclusion that Miller must be a Republican too.

And what’s with Eric Cantor? The National Journal says he is the second most conservative of the entire Virginia congressional delegation (including senators). And his signs are RED! When I was a wee lad, nobody would think of using red. Red meant commie. Hey, at the height of the Cold War, the Cincinnati baseball club changed its name from Reds to Redlegs so nobody would doubt their patriotism. Isn’t it weird that we refer to conservative strongholds as Red States? Back in the day, the Red States were China, the USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe.

I’m getting a bit tired of all these signs. They are everywhere—on people’s lawns, along the sides of roads, between sidewalks and the curb, on median strips. After a while they are just plain ugly. I guess if citizens wants to put up a sign on their own property they have a right to do so. But, what about public property? A part of that public property belongs to you and me. Should we be forced to have political signs on our part of the commons? I gotta check on this.

I’m going on line to my beloved internet and checking in the Charter of the City of Richmond. Hey, look here. Chapter 19 of the City Code deals with nuisances and Article II of that chapter deals with posting of signs. Section 19-22 is entitled “Posting of signs or advertising prohibited.” I must be getting close. Hey, it says that it is unlawful for anyone to post any sign, including a political sign, on public property. It also declares that any violation of the prohibition is a nuisance and that anybody is free to remove these nuisances from public property.

I don’t understand. If it is unlawful to post signs on public property, why are all these signs out there. Wait while I call a friend who might know. . . . Would you believe it, he says that Douglas Wilder, our beloved mayor, has instructed city employees not to enforce this ordinance before Election Day. I wonder—does the City Charter authorize the mayor to instruct city employees NOT to do their jobs? Aren’t we the citizens of Richmond entitled to a mayor who enforces the law rather than ignores it?

(Wasn’t it just yesterday that I said I had nothing much to say about His Mayorship?)