Burbank Considers Fines for Campaign Signs

The Burbank City Council is considering a proposal to fine or penalize political candidates whose campaign signs are found on city property, such as power poles and light standards.

The proposed fines would cover the cost of sending city employees to take down signs or placards, which have appeared in many places recently in anticipation of next month’s elections for the council and school board.

It is already illegal to post campaign literature on city property, City Atty. Joseph Fletcher said, but a new ordinance may be needed to add an enforcement process. Council members asked Fletcher on Tuesday night to draw up an ordinance and present it to the council Monday.

Council members, without taking a vote, also asked the city attorney to look into ways to restrict signs placed on privately owned property, such as vacant lots, without the owners’ permission.

Council supporters said the city needs to control the “visual pollution” caused by the campaign signs of 22 council candidates and five school board hopefuls. Three seats on the five-member council are up for election Feb. 23. but no incumbents are seeking reelection.

“I’m sick and tired of people running for office . . . and not playing by the rules,” Councilman Michael Hastings said.

But critics charge that the proposed fines are politically motivated, alleging that the pro-development council majority wants to thwart slow-growth challengers.

Council candidate Tom McCauley, a Democrat, complained that Hastings and Mayor Robert Bowne were targeting political opponents but looked the other way when prominent Republican candidates such as state Sen. Newton R. Russell (R-Glendale) and Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Glendale) had signs posted all over the city before last fall’s election.

“Isn’t it strange that I didn’t hear a peep out of you guys when it was your political allies?” McCauley said.

Fletcher said Wednesday he was not sure what recommendations he would make to the council until his staff researched ordinances in other municipalities.

It would be virtually impossible to enforce a law outlawing signs placed on private property without the owner’s permission, he said. “We can’t summarily go onto private property and remove those signs,” Fletcher said.

In addition, Fletcher said he would see if the city’s trespassing ordinances could somehow be interpreted to restrict unauthorized political signs.

But he cautioned that there are pitfalls in restricting campaign signs. “Political speech during campaigns is about the most sacred speech we’ve got,” Fletcher said. “The courts will be very suspicious about anything perceived to limit political speech.”

Fletcher pointed out that Redwood City adopted an ordinance requiring candidates to obtain a permit before posting any election signs, but that the law was later invalidated by the courts.

As for signs on public property, Burbank employees currently take down any signs they find. On Tuesday, seven were taken down, City Manager Robert Ovrom said. But the city makes no effort to collect reimbursement from the candidate.

Although the city could easily bill the candidate who is promoted on the placard, Ovrom said that in the world of politics, where dirty tricks are legion, things may not always be as they seem.

“What if candidate A put some of candidate B’s signs on city property to get Candidate B in trouble?” Ovrom said. “It’s a very complicated issue.”