Apparently, Fairfax county is about the most useless county in Northern Virginia for enforcing the abusing practice of posting political signs in the medians of the highways. Pat Herrity is hitting on this topic pretty hard and trying to get a few of the rules changed for Fairfax County that could really have an impact against the signs come next election.

Imagine ... no Vote for Gerry's "Kids" Connolly? Wouldn't that be sweet?

Very nice that tub of lard is taking a stand now after all of his cronies littered the frigging county for three months! How about finding your voice while it was going on Pat! As you can probably guess this is just more political nonsense. We spent two frigging years on a sign committee that gave recommendations that the Board totally ignored. As long as the politicians have to enforce the rules on themselves it will never happen.

Here's the content of his most recent newsletter for those not in his district (or who don't subscribe to his newsletter). Let's hope a multi-pronged approach (laid out within the article) will be successful in eliminating not only the annual campaign signs, but also the plethora of signs advertising fly-by-night businesses.


ENDING ILLEGAL ROAD SIGNS

The recently completed election cycle saw 99 candidates run for office in Fairfax County, and with them many thousands of campaign signs joined the bright yellow Junk B Gone and other advertising signs that litter our median strips and roadways. It is past time that Fairfax County move to address these illegally placed signs. I believe there are at least five compelling reasons to act:
Placing signs in VDOT rights-of-way is an illegal activity. Just four weeks ago I was contacted by a constituent who told me that by placing my signs in the medians I was breaking the law, and quite frankly she was right, and I had no good answer for her - saying "everybody does it" is just not good enough. It is time to enforce the law.

Fairfax County is the only county in the state that has not addressed this problem. I do not see the same problem as I travel throughout Virginia.
Signs in the median can be dangerous, obstruct sight distance and distract drivers. My office received many calls asking us to remove signs from both parties that blocked the view of drivers trying to turn. I am aware of at least one accident this election season that was blamed on a campaign sign that obstructed sight distance

Demonstrate pride in our community. I find it hypocritical that we regularly complain about grass height in medians, but will not deal with 4 X 8 foot multicolored pieces of plastic.

Cost to VDOT and the County. Prior to each mowing VDOT must pay to clear the rights-of-way of illegally placed signs and other litter. VDOT and the County also must pay to clear the signs that candidates fail to remove after the elections are over.

Under the current Virginia Code, a County does not have the legal authority to remove signs from VDOT rights-of-way unless it enters into an agreement with the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner authorizing it to do so. However, even if Fairfax County were to enter into such an agreement, the Virginia Code imposes certain limitations on the County's authority to remove signs from VDOT rights-of-way that do not apply to any other County.

For example, the Virginia Code provides that Fairfax County cannot remove from VDOT rights-of-way signs and advertising supporting an individual's candidacy for elected public office or other ballot issues until such signs have been in place for more than three days after the election to which they apply. Delegate Dave Albo is preparing to submit such a bill this legislative session to eliminate this Fairfax County specific limitation. Delegate Jim LeMunyon is also introducing a bill that would increase the fines from $100 to $500 for illegal signs.

At the December 6th meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Board approved my motion to do the following:

- Support legislation that would remove from the Virginia Code restrictions that apply only to Fairfax County with respect to the removal of political signs from VDOT rights-of-way.

- Direct the County Executive to develop and present to the Board cost effective options for removal of signs from the right-of-way including leveraging the use existing staff, part time resources, VDOT and organizations or groups that currently remove signs - the Town of Herndon, Reston, Fair Lakes League, Burke Center Conservancy and Adopt a Highway groups to name a few and present them for discussion at an upcoming Development Process Committee meeting.

- Direct the County Attorney to draft an agreement between the Board and the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner f that would authorize the Board to remove all signs from VDOT rights-of-way for discussion at an upcoming Development Process Committee meeting.

- Investigate and consider a suggestion made by Supervisor Penny Gross to increase the bond posted for signs in the county from $100 to up to $1,000.

It is well past time to put an end to illegal signs in the right-of-way. I believe that with a two or three year focused effort and minimal investment we can rid our communities of illegal road signs.

Only one issue......the political signs are protected by the 1st amendment...know your case law

Capt obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only one issue......the political signs are
> protected by the 1st amendment...know your case
> law


Then why are they not allowed in MD? (so I've been told)

Capt obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only one issue......the political signs are
> protected by the 1st amendment...know your case
> law

So why can Fairfax County dictate what signage looks like in commercial shopping centers? Notice the lack of neon signs in the county? That's not because all of the businesses don't like neon signs; it's because there's a zoning ordinance against it. (And yes, I'd say that neon signs are an expression of speech in that they have artistic value.)

I would also submit that Fairfax would be telling them they're unable to put up signs, only that they're unable to put up signs on public rights-of-way. I would liken it to an organized protest. Sure, you can protest all you want, but you'd better get a permit first.

And what's this case law you refer to?

Here's a ruling from the Supreme Court that says otherwise (Members of the City Council of the City of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984)): http://supreme.justia.com/us/466/789/case.html

(For those who lack the desire to read the findings, the jist of it is that the ban on signs on public property in Los Angeles was found to be content-neutral since it applied to all signs and was carefully tailored to remedy the problems it sought to address. In addition, there were ample methods of communication that served as alternatives to the signs. -- from http://sogweb.sog.unc.edu/blogs/localgovt/?p=2308)

First off, the 1st amendment does NOT protect "commercial" speech.

More to the point, I find those signs irritating enough that I’ve done some research on the situation in the past. Political signs, as opposed to advertising signs, are apparently allowed ("Permitted"). In fact, most, if not all, Virginia counties make it a crime to remove them. In my opinion, that's not right, but it's what we got. The problem devolves to the cleanup afterward...

The operative laws on highway signage are strewn through the Va. Code all over the place, so it would probably take a really smart person to devolve them all into one coherent story, but the snippet of code at: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+33.1-373, provides two important clauses:

1. “... Advertisements placed within the limits of the highway are hereby declared a public and private nuisance and may be forthwith removed, obliterated, or abated by the Commissioner of Highways or his representatives without notice ....” This refers solely to unpermitted signs (see 33.1-355), of course.

2. ... “When no one is observed erecting, painting, printing, placing, putting, or affixing such sign or advertisement, the person, firm or corporation being advertised shall be presumed to have placed the sign or advertisement and shall be punished accordingly ....”

Now, skip over to: http://www.virginiadot.org/programs/prog-aah-faqs.asp, and note that if one adopts a highway, “As an Adopt-a-Highway volunteer, you are considered a representative of VDOT, with the full backing of the agency’s commissioner.”

Ergo, in theory, one simply has to apply to, and be accepted by, Adopt-a-Highway, after which one can spend two years removing all the unpermitted signs one wants to (probably including within many neighborhoods -- refer to 33.1-353 and 33.1-36), and, if they are aggressive, they can push the DMV to prosecute the sign purveyors to the tune of $100 a sign.

This also points to a slight quandary vis-a-vis Pat Herrity’s commment wherein he says, “Under the current Virginia Code, a County does not have the legal authority to remove signs from VDOT rights-of-way unless it enters into an agreement with the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner authorizing it to do so.” Yes, but that conflicts with the other -- would that make the rule County-No, Individual-Yes?

If the legislators really want to take an interesting step in getting some incentivized help with this blight of signs, they might consider modifying the code to give the “VDOT Representative” removing the sign (or, alternatively, any person reporting an offending sign) $10 of the $100 fine thereafter collected. That might even provide an added incentive to attract more volunteers to the Adopt-a-Highway program.

Ah yes, I can see it now -- the Commonwealth-Incentivized Sign Policing and Investigative Group (CISPIG)...