A Sign of the Times

On Wednesday, October 5, 2011, there was an article in the Monroe Patch (read it here: ) about the removal of political signs from the private property of peoples’ homes. While the title of the article suggested something political, the real issues that have been raised by this situation are more far reaching.  

The article reports that the Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) sent a notification to the heads of both political parties notifying them of rules to be enforced regarding the placement of political signs. Unfortunately, at least one e-mail did not make it to the intended recipient. 

While e-mail may be a good thing for rapid communications, it has also made us forget that in many situations it is important to ensure that communications actually reach their intended target. Before e-mail, an official notice such as in this case would have been sent by mail and may have even had a return receipt.  Therefore, all employees should take steps when sending important e-mail to ensure that it arrives as intended. There are two simple ways to accomplish this by either using the "return receipt" function in most e-mail programs, or simply including language asking the recipient to confirm that they have read the material.

The Patch article also described a difference in the interpretation of the regulations regarding the placement of political signs between the ZEO and one of the citizens from whose property the signs were removed. I have read the regulations in question and while I'm not a legal expert, it is clear to me that the ZEO has the wrong understanding of the language in the regulation. 

This difference of opinion raises a number of questions that I think need to be addressed by the elected officials of Monroe. Prior to deciding to enforce the regulation on the placement of signs, what actions did the ZEO take to ensure that he fully understood the regulations? Did he seek legal guidance? Did he ask the Planning & Zoning Commission for a ruling? Did he seek out any information about past practices in town? Given that the ZEO started to enforce the regulations as he understood them, what recourse does a citizen have? How does a citizen appeal the ruling of the ZEO? 

There are also some broader questions that I think need to be addressed. What processes exist within all of the town hall departments to educate new employees?  Do we just put them into a job, hand them a regulation book and say go at it, or is there some education that takes place? I have lived in town for 18 years and I have never seen an issue related to the placement of political signs in public right-of-ways on private property. If the town is going to change its rules (such as the fee for tag sale signs) or change how it is going to enforce its rules, should the public be notified beforehand?

The article also stated that the ZEO uses a 10-foot rule-of-thumb to determine the width of the right-of-way. Do we really allow any town employee to set their own rules related to the enforcement of any town regulations? The ZEO acknowledges that the town can set whatever limit it wants, but in the absence of any such direction should the ZEO have even started an enforcement action? Rather than a random value, did the ZEO do any analysis to arrive at the 10-foot number?

The article, and the comments that followed, also raised issues of safety. First Selectman Steve Vavrek said, "I think it's a safety issue for walkers and bikers." Others mentioned vehicle safety. Maybe there is a safety issue, but if so, then there should be some data to support this idea. How many accidents have as their cause these political signs that are up for no more than 45 days every two years?  How many bikers and walkers actually travel on the lawns of private property owners rather than in the street itself?  

While I'm on the issue of safety, my guess is that a simple drive around town will show many more areas where right-of-way and line-of-sight is blocked by trees and overgrown brush. Not only are there more of these areas, but they exist all year. Maybe the town should focus on tree trimming, brush removal, and re-grading land in right-of-ways that actually do impact vision and present a risk to traffic. 

Lastly, it was suggested that maybe signs should be put further away from the road than has been traditional. Before such an idea is adopted, it might be useful to see if there are any studies that suggest that the further away a sign is placed from the edge of the road the more a driver has to take his eyes away from the road if, or when, he tries to read the signs. I wonder if that might be a greater safety risk.