Members of the West Windsor Township Council reached consensus on some ideas for regulating political signs that pop up around town during election season: they will only be permitted 30 days before and 7 days after an election, and they will be limited to 16 square feet in size.
They seemed, however, to avoid regulating other political signs that advocate issues with no clear timeframe, like the signs that have been put up around town with regard to the possible privatization of the school district’s custodians.
The consensus came on February 1 after continued discussion on the matter. Council has been trying to regulate the time, place, and manner in which the signs are placed around town in an effort to maintain the quality of life and avoid sign pollution.
Council members all agreed the signs, which are currently allowed to be up to 32 square feet in size in a nonresidential zone, should be limited to 16 square feet and that the campaign signs should only be allowed 30 days before and 7 days after an election.
While Councilwoman Diane Ciccone objected to allowing campaign signs on any public property, Councilman Charles Morgan argued the council should allow for signs to be placed in the public right-of-way in moderation.
His idea to allow one sign to an entrance of a public property, like a park, which would be designated as a “public forum,” was ultimately accepted by his colleagues.
Council members debated how to regulate the right-of-way limitations, with Morgan first proposing a number restriction — 250 signs around the township — or by allowing only one sign every 300 yards. Council members also debated specifying heavily-traveled roads as allowable areas for signs.
“I think it’s impractical and adds a burden to the township because then they’re going to go out and count them,” Ciccone said. “A proliferation of signs is political pollution.”
Though Ciccone was opposed to the idea, council agreed to have the ordinance drafted to allow one sign per candidate at the entrance of a public park or property as well as on medians in the public right-of-way, so long as the signs never obstruct public view.
Morgan also suggested the council include a definition of political signs, which he proposed to be a sign that advocates for an elective office. He also suggested including a definition of an advocacy sign, which is a sign advocating a position without regard to an election cycle.
With regard to these advocacy signs, Councilwoman Linda Geevers said she wanted to see what kind of restrictions can be placed on the signs, which she said some people view as an esthetic nuisance. But she was unable to garner support from her colleagues, mostly because there was no clear way to gauge a time line for the issues being advocated on the signs.
For example, the signs opposing the possible outsourcing of the school district’s custodial staff began springing up in October and are still seen on people’s lawns. “Sometimes people don’t want to see these signs for months and months,” Geevers said.
While council debated the possibility of placing time limits on those signs, they found that a clear start and end date to the issue would be subjective.
Council President George Borek said regulation of those signs could create a slippery slope. He pointed to regulation of a “Support Our Troops” sign as an example. Ciccone compared it to regulating a sign with a position on gay marriage, both of which are ongoing issues and subjective in terms of time frames.
Township Attorney Michael Herbert is drafting the ordinance and will submit it to council for further review at the council’s next meeting on Tuesday, February 16.
