Friday, September 26, 2008

Political Sign Debate

As with every election, a debate always ensues over someone's political signs. Typically, someone accuses one campaign of stealing another person's campaign signs. That's usually explained by someone putting the signs in the right-of-way instead of on private property. Recently, a debate has ensued about political signs in Indianapolis for Mitch Daniels' gubernatorial campaign. Jim Shella blogs about Marion Co. Democratic Chairman Ed Treacy writing a letter to city legal asking that the city's sign ordinance be enforced against over-sized Daniels signs:

Marion County Democratic Chairman Ed Treacy wrote the city attorney today asking that Mitch Daniels campaign signs be removed because they violate a size ordinance.

The large signs are visible on Meridian Street and in the Meridian Kessler neighborhood. Strict enforcement of the sign law, however, will also force the removal of some Obama signs of similar size.

I have no problem with strict enforcement of the sign law, but the Obama campaign has been violating this law blatantly. There are over-sized Obama signs which have been displayed in people's yards since the May primary. In some cases, these mini billboards have been attached to homes, creating a real eyesore. I haven't heard the Democrats complaining about those signs.


daltonsbriefs said...

Political sign laws are unconstitutional, and therefore should not be enforced. In Valparaiso, a place recently attacked as liberal, conservatives have decided not to enforce any political sign laws.

Free speech is free speech, even if the sign isn't your favorite.

Indy4U2C said...

I saw an illegal O'Bama sign the size of a billboard in front of a one-stop shop for criminals at 38th/Sheridan: The building looks like a church, but also has the convenience of gambling (bingo), bail bonds (get out of jail) and drug rehab (probation requirements).

I did more research and found the so-called church was tax exempt, paying no taxes. I filed a complaint with the IRS for a tax exempt advocating policitcal candidate and city for the illegal O'Bama billboard in front.


Vox Populi said...

Treacy is wrong on this issue, and should leave the signs alone. I should have the right to put whatever sign I want in my yard at any time I want.

That's the great thing about freedom of speech and not having a neighborhood association.

artfuggins said...

the defunct church you are referring to is now private property and no longer a church.

M Theory said...

Like last year....I am planing a rather large crop of homemade signs in my yard in addition to the printed ones.

Some of you might recall the "YARD OF SHAME" with the heads of all the city councilors that voted to increase our COIT. Monroe Gray had $$$ tattoos and devil horns.

Unknown said...


Since Mayor Ballard and his merry band of cronies have given up the high moral ground and come out aggressively against taxpayers, I guess we'll have to put their heads up in the yard.

Indy4U2C said...


You lie. The property roll at the city-county building shows it is tax exempt property belonging to "First Christian Church".

Wait and see what the IRS has to say....


From the Official Record:

Parcel #:
Owner Name:

Property Address:

2006 Post Reassessment Gross Assessed Value: $2,759,700.00 This Assessed Value will be used on the Reconciliation Bill
2005 Gross Assessed Value: $2,122,800.00

2006 Pre Reassessment Gross Assessed Value:$2,122,800.00

Township: Lawrence
Neighborhood Code: 918C
Property Class Type: EXEMPT

Citizen Kane said...

Cities can regulate the size and location of signs. No one's free speech is being violated by sign size restrictions.

Luckily for me, I've not seen either large sign referenced.

Indy4U2C said...

Look up Marion County parcel #4005617 at 6190 E 38th ST.

The web address to see the TAX EXEMPT status of this parcel with a billboard for political candidate in front (in violation of IRS regulation) is: