ATOL – At its Oct. 15 meeting, the Selectboard voted to impose a complete ban on the installation of signs of any kind on town-owned property.
The move comes two weeks after the board voted to ban political signs on city property. Almost immediately, someone raised concerns about the policy to the mayor’s office.
“The board approved a policy restricting political signage on town property,” said Town Manager Sean Suhoski. “We did receive a complaint at the office, so we consulted with the city attorney. We have thought this through and are working to make sure our language (in the policy) meets the spirit of the law. , we decided we should give the city council a little more time.”
“I looked over the policy that was brought before you last time,” said Town Counsel John Barrett. “It looked okay to me, but on reflection, I think this was probably an iteration of a sign policy we worked on two or three years ago, and someone complained about it. So I looked at it again and realized it was flawed in that it prohibited political signs on town property.”
Barrett then explained that the board has the authority to ban all signs on town property, not just signs for or against a particular candidate or issue. At the time the original policy was being discussed, he said: “We were concerned about the fact that banning all signs would mean banning signs for nonprofits to hold bake sales or conduct some type of fundraiser.” Where (an organization) typically places those signs. ”
Barrett went on to explain that the commission could effectively ban all signs from public property, except signs used to identify public buildings and facilities. He said most courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, “can ban all signs, but they ban signs based on their content and say, ‘This is a commercial sign, so we prohibit it. ‘We cannot make decisions like this.’ Allow. This is a political sign, so we will not allow it. ”
He said it violates the right to freedom of expression.
Barrett distributed copies of Hampton’s policy regarding political signage on town property. The policy specifically prohibits “the installation of political signs on city-owned land.” Barrett said he believes Hampton’s policy “violates Gilbert v. Reed, which went all the way to the Supreme Court in 2015,” essentially basing his ruling on that idea. I put it down. For example, if you’re going to allow a Salvation Army sign…just because it’s political speech doesn’t mean you can’t put up another sign. ”
Board member Kara Fisher wondered if placing political signs on public property fell within the guidelines of the town’s zoning ordinance. Barrett said the ordinance applies to all signs, but not just political signs.
Board member Rebecca Bialecki said: “Charity signage advertising upcoming events, physical signage on premises, is a challenge today because people don’t use signage to get information. I think that’s extremely rare.” I think it would be better to say, “We don’t put up signs on public land.” that’s it. That’s the easiest way. ”
The city of Bialecki then moved to enact a policy that simply stated that “all signs on town-owned property are no longer permitted.” Her motion passed unanimously.
Questions about how to hold the sign
Later in the meeting, board member Brian Dodge expressed concern about several autograph signing events that have taken place at Athol in recent weeks.
“Republicans and Democrats doing their thing uptown and downtown shouldn’t be blocking sidewalks,” he said. “If the police could stop and say something, I don’t know what action we could take. One of them had a canoe, the other had a chair, and both were blocking the sidewalk. It’s a little frustrating for people who are just passing by.”
It was also noted that some people participating in an activity known as “stand out” often go out onto the road to hold up signs in front of oncoming traffic.
Dodge suggested that police should ask participants to say something if they appear to be blocking the sidewalk.
Greg Vine can be reached at gvineadn@gmail.com.
