Burbank Council Rules Out New Controls on Political Signs

The Burbank City Council has backed off a proposal to restrict political signs on private property and fine political candidates who illegally post signs on public property.

The council agreed unanimously to take no action restricting political signs Tuesday night after City Atty. Joseph W. Fletcher told the council that such an ordinance would be unenforceable and probably unconstitutional.

“It’s going to be a difficult path for us to enforce this both constitutionally and legislatively,” said Mayor Robert Bowne, after hearing Fletcher’s report.

Fletcher prepared a proposed ordinance and a report at the request of council members. Last week, several council members said they had received complaints from citizens about political signs that were placed on vacant lots, fences and walls without the owners’ permission and on city property. It is illegal to post signs, political or otherwise, on city property.

The signs have sprouted throughout Burbank in the past two weeks in anticipation of the Feb. 23 municipal elections in which 20 candidates are vying for three seats on the five-member council. No incumbents are seeking reelection. Critics have charged that any restrictions on signs were politically motivated attacks on challengers.

“This is 90% politics,” said Bob Kramer, who said he puts campaign signs only on the property of supporters. “I think putting it on the agenda the way they did was a way to do political bashing against challengers.”

City code enforcement officials also discounted the problem.

“We’ve only had seven illegally posted signs on public property. This is not a huge thing,” said Terre Hirsch, head of licensing and code services for the city. “This happens every election.”

Fletcher’s proposed ordinance would have made it illegal to post a sign on private property without the permission of the owner. It did not specifically target political signs. He said that if the city appeared to single out political signs, the ordinance would likely be invalidated by the courts as a restriction of free speech.

“It would take significant amounts of city resources to enforce this,” Fletcher said, because the city would have to contact the owner before tearing down any signs. “It would be better if we had property owners coming to us.”

But property owners are not complaining much, said Hirsch, who has received only three complaints in the past two weeks about political signs on private property.

Fletcher also recommended against fining the owners of political signs found on public property, because of possible free speech concerns and problems in proving the candidate listed on the sign was responsible for posting it.

“It’s going to be a difficult and time-consuming activity, establishing who placed the sign,” Fletcher said. He also suggested it could create “a great opportunity for political dirty tricks,” by placing a rival candidate’s signs in illegal locations.

Bowne, who originally proposed an anti-sign ordinance, and the other council members reluctantly agreed to go along with Fletcher’s recommendation.

The council’s actions did not please supporters of a ban.

“You’ve completely ignored the rights of property owners . . . I think it was a cowardly decision,” said Dave Gerred, a homeowner who earlier had urged the council to pass an ordinance.