Public right versus public eyesore is what Comox council debated at Wednesday’s committee of the whole meeting, as the topic of election signs on public property split the council table.
Richard Kanigan, the town’s chief administrative officer, asked for direction from council on whether political signs should be legally limited within Comox.
He notes in a report that Section 325 of the Canada Elections Act states that no one can prevent or impair the transmission to the public of an election advertising message, such as a sign, however, a public authority may prevent or impair any unlawful transmission, after giving reasonable notice.
Council can pass a bylaw regulating the placement of signs within its jurisdiction, however, signs on some public property must be permitted as to not infringe on freedom of expression.
“Do we get many complaints about this … is it really that big of an issue? I personally don’t really see a big issue with it,” said Coun. Russ Arnott.
Coun. Hugh MacKinnon noted signs on public property could be a safety issue with driving and prohibiting sightlines.
“I think people can put signs on their private property all they want, but when you have a collection of signs, it takes away the sightlines of the work our ground crew does, particularly in the springtime with the flowers; I don’t think it’s appropriate. I don’t think it’s an invasion of private rights because it’s public property,” he added.
With a municipal election scheduled for this November, Coun. Tom Grant said implementing a bylaw to restrict signs would be seen as a conflict of interest.
“I think it would be unwise for us as sitting politicians in a municipal election year to restrict signs on public property because we would be the sole benefactors of that bylaw,” he noted. “I agree with Coun. MacKinnon, election signs are unsightly, unfortunately they seem to be necessary because people keep putting them up every year. But that’s like feathering our own nest in an election year to restrict signs on public property.”
Coun. Marcia Turner agreed that limiting signs would be difficult for people who are trying to get their name recognized if they are running in an election for the first time, while Coun. Patti Fletcher noted, “I think this is the time to do it. We know there’s an election coming up and this the time to say this where we want our signs to be or not to be.”
Coun. Ken Grant, agreed with Arnott, noting candidates should have the choice to advertise their name as they see fit.
“In the first election that I ran, if I didn’t put signs up with my picture out there, Tom Grant would have gotten elected, because everyone asked me if I was Tom. So the fact that I was able to put signs out there and be able to identify who I was, is the name recognition which I think helped out,” he said.
“We live in a free country, and if the public doesn’t like your signs, then they won’t vote for you. I think we should keep it the way it is, and go with the status quo.”
Mayor Paul Ives noted that council should consider the impact signs have to greenspace, especially the town’s infrastructure.
“Particularly, the Guthrie Road area looks really bad. It seems in the last week or two (of elections) that any signs you got left, they just blast them on that boulevard. To what effect, I’m sure our park director can tell us how many sprinkler lines have been busted.”
“They look like swiss cheese,” replied Al Fraser, superintendent of parks. “Our irrigation system in that area has been pounded to an inch of its life, and it’s going to take quite a bit of effort to reinstate it.”
Council agreed on a motion that staff report back on the effect of signage on public property in terms of location and damage control.
photos@comoxvalleyrecord.com
