Post by admin on Oct 22, 2008 19:09:53 GMT -5
Don't try this at home, apparently it is illegal. But I like what the guy did.
www.app.com/article/20081019/POLITICS/810190371/1285/LOCAL09
Citizen yanks campaign signs
DISORDERLY CONDUCT CHARGE
COLTS NECK — There might not be windmills in Colts Neck, but that does not stop Dr. Jeffrey Marvin, 60, from comparing himself to Don Quixote.
The dentist says he is tilting against the placement of political signs on public rights of way. He does not have a political agenda, he says, but his annoyance over the practice of signs began some years ago. And so, earlier this week, he stopped to take a sign that he says was placed on taxpayer-owned land.
But a resident called police, and when an officer arrived, he spotted Marvin taking more signs, authorities said. Inside his car, police said, they found 48 political signs — from all political parties — and they charged him with disorderly conduct.
Police said they notified the campaign headquarters of the parties whose signs were taken and asked them if they wanted to proceed with additional complaints. Tom Clarke, chairman of the local Democratic party, said that for now, his organization does not plan to pursue charges. The chairperson of the local Republican party could not immediately be reached for comment.
The associate director of a political institute says it is largely up to municipalities to determine if signs may be placed on public rights of way. A township official said the local ordinance does not mention sign placement.
But Marvin's right-of-way issues did not start with signs. They began with oak trees.
When he and his wife moved to their Colts Neck home four years ago, there were dilapidated scrub oaks near his mailbox, and branches often fell from those trees, so the couple decided to cut them down, he said.
Two days later, members of the local Shade Tree Commission told them they had violated rules by chopping down the trees that were technically on township property.
Marvin said he argued that if the trees belonged to the township, then the township should have properly maintained them. He said he had to go to court, and while a judge found him guilty of violating a township rule, he waived the potential $5,000 fine.
"That's when my Don Quixote independent streak kicked in," Marvin said.
He says that if the trees were on township property, then political signs placed next to the road are also on taxpayer-owned land.
"The point I was trying to make is that the signs should not be there," he said. "And if they're going to be put there, then they should pay a fee, for every sign they place, to the township, so at least the people of the township get to benefit from the advertising they're doing."
He said that he removed some signs last year, and on Wednesday morning, he stopped on Route 537 West and began to take down a sign next to the road. The resident of the property happened to pull into her driveway, and she yelled at him, he said. He said he asked her to move the sign off the right of way, but she refused and said she was calling the police.
Marvin said he continued on his way, and as he neared the intersection with Montrose Road, he saw more signs that he believes were in an area that could obstruct motorists' view. So he started removing them, he said.
"A police car pulled up, and I continued taking the signs down," he said.
He has a Nov. 14 court date.
"I've never been arrested before," he said. "I'm a good person."
John Weingart, associate director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, said the right-of-way issue is one that comes up in elections across the country each year, and the rules about sign placement depend largely on each municipality's laws.
Signs are allowed on private property, and anyone who removes them is trespassing, he said. Signs on public property tend to be against the law, but that tends to be ignored in most areas, he said.
It is something that is alternately a free-for-all or an unwritten understanding among campaigns, he said. In some cases, parties have a sign war — taking opponents' signs down and putting up their own. In others, signs for opposing candidates sit at the same intersections, so whoever put up the second sign made a conscious decision not to remove the one that was already there, he said.
"It really depends on how the municipalities write their law and how they chose to enforce it," Weingart said. "It's something of a Wild West area in politics."
In Colts Neck, the ordinance says only that political signs do not require a sign permit, cannot exceed 32 square feet, should not be erected sooner than 30 days before an election and must be removed within seven days of an election, said Township Administrator Robert Bowden.
Marvin said he votes regularly in general elections. He and his wife are registered Republicans, although for some time they have been planning to change their affiliation to independent.
"And here we go — I'm going to be like "Joe the Plumber,' " he said. "This is crazy."
www.app.com/article/20081019/POLITICS/810190371/1285/LOCAL09
Citizen yanks campaign signs
DISORDERLY CONDUCT CHARGE
COLTS NECK — There might not be windmills in Colts Neck, but that does not stop Dr. Jeffrey Marvin, 60, from comparing himself to Don Quixote.
The dentist says he is tilting against the placement of political signs on public rights of way. He does not have a political agenda, he says, but his annoyance over the practice of signs began some years ago. And so, earlier this week, he stopped to take a sign that he says was placed on taxpayer-owned land.
But a resident called police, and when an officer arrived, he spotted Marvin taking more signs, authorities said. Inside his car, police said, they found 48 political signs — from all political parties — and they charged him with disorderly conduct.
Police said they notified the campaign headquarters of the parties whose signs were taken and asked them if they wanted to proceed with additional complaints. Tom Clarke, chairman of the local Democratic party, said that for now, his organization does not plan to pursue charges. The chairperson of the local Republican party could not immediately be reached for comment.
The associate director of a political institute says it is largely up to municipalities to determine if signs may be placed on public rights of way. A township official said the local ordinance does not mention sign placement.
But Marvin's right-of-way issues did not start with signs. They began with oak trees.
When he and his wife moved to their Colts Neck home four years ago, there were dilapidated scrub oaks near his mailbox, and branches often fell from those trees, so the couple decided to cut them down, he said.
Two days later, members of the local Shade Tree Commission told them they had violated rules by chopping down the trees that were technically on township property.
Marvin said he argued that if the trees belonged to the township, then the township should have properly maintained them. He said he had to go to court, and while a judge found him guilty of violating a township rule, he waived the potential $5,000 fine.
"That's when my Don Quixote independent streak kicked in," Marvin said.
He says that if the trees were on township property, then political signs placed next to the road are also on taxpayer-owned land.
"The point I was trying to make is that the signs should not be there," he said. "And if they're going to be put there, then they should pay a fee, for every sign they place, to the township, so at least the people of the township get to benefit from the advertising they're doing."
He said that he removed some signs last year, and on Wednesday morning, he stopped on Route 537 West and began to take down a sign next to the road. The resident of the property happened to pull into her driveway, and she yelled at him, he said. He said he asked her to move the sign off the right of way, but she refused and said she was calling the police.
Marvin said he continued on his way, and as he neared the intersection with Montrose Road, he saw more signs that he believes were in an area that could obstruct motorists' view. So he started removing them, he said.
"A police car pulled up, and I continued taking the signs down," he said.
He has a Nov. 14 court date.
"I've never been arrested before," he said. "I'm a good person."
John Weingart, associate director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, said the right-of-way issue is one that comes up in elections across the country each year, and the rules about sign placement depend largely on each municipality's laws.
Signs are allowed on private property, and anyone who removes them is trespassing, he said. Signs on public property tend to be against the law, but that tends to be ignored in most areas, he said.
It is something that is alternately a free-for-all or an unwritten understanding among campaigns, he said. In some cases, parties have a sign war — taking opponents' signs down and putting up their own. In others, signs for opposing candidates sit at the same intersections, so whoever put up the second sign made a conscious decision not to remove the one that was already there, he said.
"It really depends on how the municipalities write their law and how they chose to enforce it," Weingart said. "It's something of a Wild West area in politics."
In Colts Neck, the ordinance says only that political signs do not require a sign permit, cannot exceed 32 square feet, should not be erected sooner than 30 days before an election and must be removed within seven days of an election, said Township Administrator Robert Bowden.
Marvin said he votes regularly in general elections. He and his wife are registered Republicans, although for some time they have been planning to change their affiliation to independent.
"And here we go — I'm going to be like "Joe the Plumber,' " he said. "This is crazy."