Every two years, streets and yards are lined with political signs for candidates on the ballot in local elections. And every two years, there is bound to be some debate over the number, placement, and amount of time those signs are allowed to stay up.
In 2012, the city council passed a city ordinance regulating when, where, and how many political signs can be placed during election season.
However, that ordinance is largely unenforceable, thanks to a 2014 Supreme Court ruling stating that political signs on private property are constitutionally protected free speech.
At Monday night’s council meeting, Ward 3 Councillor Anthony Cogliando introduced a motion seeking a public hearing to repeal Revere’s political sign ordinance.
However, Ward 2 Councilor Ira Novoselsky, who wrote the 2012 ordinance, voted against moving the motion to a second reading, effectively tabling the motion to a future meeting.
Novoselsky and several other councillors stated that they were opposed to repealing the ordinance, stating that it helps regulate the signs in the city and that most candidates do abide by its provisions.
“I filed this exact motion two years ago and it ended up going into subcommittee and went sine die at the end of the year,” said Cogliandro. “There is absolutely no reason that this council should have an ordinance on the books that is unenforceable. Also, it will alleviate probably hundreds of phone calls to the election commission.”
Cogliandro said he understands the reasoning behind the ordinance, and that while it is not enforceable, there has generally been an agreement among candidates about when they will put up signs.
“Realistically, no one follows it; and I want to state here publicly that I’m not putting a sign up until after Labor Day,” he said. “I don’t even want my own sign in my house for more than two months. It’s sign pollution every two years; that’s my opinion, if you want to put a sign up now, that is your constitutional right as an American.”
Election Commissioner Danielle Pietrantonio said she agreed that the ordinance is unenforceable.
“Our office was instructed by legal counsel that if anyone called and asked about it that yes, it is on the books but that it is unenforceable,” she said. “Because it is unenforceable, it creates confusion more than anything and conflict because some people read it and follow it. Some call and hear that it is not enforceable so they don’t and the people who follow it feel it is unfair so the office is definitely in support of repealing it.”
Novoselsky said he doesn’t believe there has been a problem with the ordinance since it went on the books 13 years ago.
“People obey the alleged illegal ordinance, but I think it works,” he said. “I wrote it in 2012 and the council at the time was given permission by the city solicitor at that time that we could do it. I want this city to look good, and by allowing people to leave (signs) up year round, it’s poor judgment.
“I want to see them down, it’s worked, again, for 12 years, people put them up on time, they take them down on time,” Novoselsky continued. “They still have the right to put them up and show what they want to do and who they want to vote for, and when it comes to January, nobody cares.”
Cogliandro noted that the Supreme Court case was decided in 2014, two years after the city ordinance was enacted in Revere.
