Selectman Requested Removal of Political Signs
Pat Hargreaves said there was a misunderstanding regarding the eventual disposal of the signs.
Photos
Salem Board of Selectmen Chair Pat Hargreaves said he asked the town to remove political signs he said were covering veteran's markers around town.
Hargreaves said at Monday's meeting he noticed one night recently "a bunch" of markers around town were covered with political signs.
"To me a veteran's marker is holy ground," Hargreaves said. "It honors our veterans who made the supreme sacrifice and gave their lives to the United States and the Town of Salem."
Hargreaves said he asked Town Manager Keith Hickey to have the signs removed from the areas because they are "officially town property."
Hargreaves said Hickey asked him what he'd like to see done with the signs. Hargreaves said normally the town takes them to the transfer station where the owners can pick them up.
Unfortunately, Hargreaves said there was a "miscommunication" that led to the signs being discarded.
"I forgot the last time we did that our town manager was not aware of what we did with the political signs, so he instructed our DPW director to throw them away," Hargreaves said.
He then apologized to the local candidates for that action, but reiterated the signs should not have been on town property.
Doug Micklon, president of the Salem Veterans Association, was present Monday night and thanked Hargreaves for asking the signs that were "encroaching" on veteran's markers be removed.
"To us it is a hallowed ground, like a cemetery plot," Micklon said.
Selectmen discussed a potential new policy regarding signs near veteran's markers, but Hickey said it in essence already exists.
Political signs are not allowed on town property, Hickey said, and the veteran's markers are all on town property.
"We have rules, they should be enforced," Selectman Jim Keller said.
Selectman Stephen Campbell moved that political signs not be allowed within 10 feet of veteran's markers on public property as a policy by the Board of Selectman. That was passed unaimously.
Tom Linehan
6:56 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that political signs are the highest form of protected speech. Thus they must be give the widest possible latitude. Restrictions government may impose on political signs must be narrowly tailored to promote legitimate government interests such as public safety. De facto enforcement must be no greater than that of other types of signs.
In other words if there is no danger to the public or some other compelling reason, political signs are protected by the First Amendment.
By the way I asked a high level town official for a list of town land. He had no idea. How are we supposed to know?
Jeff Hatch
7:05 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Tom your absolutely correct. What they did was drive around and just pulled up every sign they thought that was to close to the right away. When we had the so called code enforcer on the pay role he tried to tell me if signs were placed between the road and the utility pole those signs would be considered to be in the public way and would be removed.
Jeff Hatch
7:11 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Although I will agree that they shouldn't be put on sites where Vetern's Markers are located.
Tom Linehan
7:26 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
@Jeff Hatch, I have no problem with avoiding Veterans' Markers. But that is just about the only rule that is really clear. The rest are totally arbitrary.
Ron Wells
8:35 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Personally, I think the proliferation of signs around any town at election time are an unsightly mess. Nothing looks worse than approaching an intersection that is covered in ugly art
Tom Linehan
9:13 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
@Ron Wells, I agree. Personally I too think they are an "unsightly mess". In fact I spend weeks after elections picking up many more than I place. But just like all the phone calls, if they did not work, no one would do it. I spend a lot of time and effort on signs and various other political activities most of which you never see. I do it because it works. And again this is Constitutionally protected speech. Free Speech trumps the non existing right not to be annoyed.
Soujourner Truth
8:53 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
It was all Republicans who had signs at veteran's memorial sites, as far as I saw. If they claim not to know and can't follow the rules governing elections, we have no reason to believe they will grow such wisdom as they make decisions for us in the Statehouse. Disagreeing with a law is not a justification for flouting it. Just sayin.
Tom Linehan
9:05 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
@Soujourner Truth Most of us are trying to comply with the law. It is just unworkable and unconstitutional. I have had many signs that were on private property and perfectly legal picked up by the town over the years All I ask is to know the rules and I shall comply. This is the first time anyone mentioned Veteran's marker locations. This is not an issue confined to Salem or New Hampshire. It is very difficult to comply with such arbitrary rules. In fact I had a Town official declare to me that he would like to remove specific signs that were totally legal on private property in which I had the owners explicit permission.
Riley Reid
9:11 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Believe it or not, it's 2012 people, but we run this town like it was 1950.
Seriously, is this the most important issue facing Salem right now ?
We should have never gotten rid of the Code Enforcement Officer.
Tom Linehan
9:16 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
@Riley Reid, I agree about the Code Enforcement officer. I had a lot fewer problems when we had a code enforcement officer. At least I knew what I could do. The rest of your post is off topic. If you can always post elsewhere on issues you feel important. You do not have to post on an article that you think is a waste.
Riley Reid
12:39 pm on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
@Tom, I watched the meeting and I don't think I am off topic at all for saying this town is run like it was back in the 50's. All the time wasted on the C&D and signs, why aren't the BOS bringing in the planners and asking them what they've done this week to bring economic growth to Salem?
Tom Puzzo
10:26 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
The fact is some of the signs that were removed were not covering or blocki ng the markers but were in close proximity to the marker but in no way covering or blocking it. In fact one of the signs was setback to the tree line. Plus, it would have been common courtesy to save the sings for the Candidates to collect later.
Tom Linehan
11:17 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
@Tom Puzzo, this is the first time that I can ever recall that they have not saved the signs they pick up. I put some signs in the vicinity of the Veterans' marker at the North end of the Rail Trail and none were even remotely near the marker itself. In fact some were placed where it is never mowed.
Tom Puzzo
10:30 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
And for sojouner truth, who chooses not to use his real name, starts blaming Republicans for the issue, well enough said. There are in fact Democratic signs around town as well illegally posted.
Jeff Hatch
12:36 pm on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Come to think about Mr. Linehan is correct in the past the signs that were picked up were placed so candidates could reclaim them. Another point he's made is that many of us pick up these sign as soon as the election is over. This is just another example of our town government coming up with small issues making mole hills out of them
Busy mom
8:10 pm on Monday, November 12, 2012
Salem Sign SUCKS!!!' I hope everybody gets this notice!