2014-03-24 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

O. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (continued if needed) P. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Ms. Carr stated that over the last week or so residents have probably noticed a plethora of campaign signs symbolizing a candidate’s political speech which is protected under their First Amendment interest. She stated that last Friday she noticed that several signs she had put out for someone had disappeared, so she called the Community Development Department and spoke with Mr. Greatens who said that he had removed the signs. Ms. Carr stated that the problem is that the signs were private property and they were removed from private property. No citation was issued to the property owner and no attempt was made to contact the candidate who owned the sign. Ms. Carr stated that Chapter 115 of the Missouri State Statute addresses this issue. This section, Election Authorities and Conduct of Elections, states that convictions for stealing or willfully defacing, mutilating or destroying any campaign sign shall be punishable by imprisonment of not more than one year, a fine of not more than $2,500 or both. Ms. Carr stated that Mr. Greatens had alluded to a section in the City’s Charter that gives staff the right to ameliorate structures. She stated that after reviewing the other remedies it seems to state that staff may enter the property or the premises; private property, so that it can be inspected and examined, and to order in writing the remedy of any condition, not to remove, but to order in writing. Regardless, the state statute takes precedence over the City code, so she would like to see the City cite the property owner, or inform them of the violation, or notify the candidate, rather than removing the signs. Ms. Carr stated that she also noticed that the signs that were being removed were primarily signs for opposition candidates. However they were on private property and the signs located on City property did not appear to be removed with the same frequency, even though staff certainly had the right to remove them. Ms. Carr then asked Mr. Walker if he could address this issue. Mr. Walker stated that since becoming the City Manager staff has provided information to all of the candidates on what the sign regulations are, and every year there are still issues with respect to signs. He stated that per University City’s zoning ordinance, candidates are permitted one sign per frontage. So if you have a corner lot that means you can have two signs. If you have a large lot the size of the sign can vary with respect to the area of that lot. Mr. Walker stated that he has been in his position for sixteen years, and before that he was the Director of Community Development who enforces this regulation. Every year during an election, every candidate has had signs removed because invariably either the candidate or their supporters, or someone who does not know, puts up signs or too many signs in locations where they are illegal. So every candidate in this election and every candidate in all of the past elections have had signs removed. Mr. Walker stated that his belief is that all of the candidates have been advised through the Director of Community Development and her staff of what the regulations are with respect to signage. Yet, every day signs are being picked up from every candidate because they are in a wrong location. Mr. Walker stated that there is not one member of City Council whose sign has not been removed at one point or another, but unfortunately that is just the way that it is. Ms. Carr stated that the question is not whether everyone has had signs removed. The question is whether University City’s Code is trumped by state statute. She stated that at one point no employee in University City was allowed to participate in municipal elections and now the State legislature has decided that first responders may participate. Ms. Carr stated that what she is saying is that University City has to find another way to enter private property and informing either the property owner or candidate of the