Early signs of a hot campaign

By John Howell
Posted 7/21/16

The first signs of an election are starting to pop up. They're relatively sparse for the moment, but that's going to change with so many candidates running for locally elected offices, not to mention what's happening on a national level.

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Early signs of a hot campaign

Posted

The first signs of an election are starting to pop up. They’re relatively sparse for the moment, but that’s going to change with so many candidates running for locally elected offices, not to mention what’s happening on a national level.

But, according to the city ordinance, some candidates violated the law by erecting signs in advance of the 60 days prior to the election, which in this case is the September 13 primary. And now the law and an effort to enforce it has become the issue and, in a twist of fate, have unified competing candidates for the School Committee.

The call that started the brouhaha had to do with a sign committee candidate Dean Johnson erected on his front lawn. Johnson said he knows who complained to the city’s building department, but he’s not releasing the name because he doesn’t want to detract from what he considers the real issue, and that has to do with his constitutional rights and the freedom of speech.

While Johnson was hardly the only candidate to get a jump on the campaign with a sign, he is the only one thus far to have been cited by the city. That’s because the city only responds to complaints, although inspectors may see plenty of violations while out and about town. Trump signs alone would keep them busy.

It didn’t take long for some people, including Johnson’s grandmother, who called the Beacon, to argue the law was being selectively enforced. The ruckus eventually resulted in city building director Alfred DeCorte rescinding the order, which he said he had not approved but was sent from his office.

But by then the ball was rolling.

Johnson brought his case to the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island. In a July 13 letter to DeCorte, ACLU executive director Steven Brown writes the city ordinance is “clearly unconstitutional.” In addition to the 60 days before an election limit, the law requires signs to be removed within 14 days of the election and restricts the display of political signs to no more than 120 days in a calendar year.

Quoting from a 2015 court case, Brown writes: “We are therefore quite troubled to see any municipality even briefly attempt to enforce an ordinance like this that so blatantly violates the First Amendment.”

Johnson said he was troubled by the city ordinance and felt his fellow candidates should know what happened. He called them as well as other Warwick candidates and said he planned to call on the City Council to repeal the law during the period for public comment at Monday’s meeting. As it turned out, committee candidates David Testa and Nathan Cornell were there to back him up.

Testa, who has run on other occasions for the committee, was aware of the law but didn’t think to look at the date of the primary when friends requested signs for their yards.

“I thought I was within the rules,” he said Monday as he waited for the council meeting to start. He had to wait more than three hours as committee meetings didn’t draw to a close until 10:15 p.m.

Johnson said both Testa and incumbent Karen Bachus offered to take their signs down.

Prior to Monday’s meeting, Mayor Scott Avedisian emailed a letter to members of the council outlining the city law.

Ward 3 Councilwoman Camille Vella-Wilkinson also sought to get in front of the issue, saying at the outset of the meeting, “I believe there are significant problems when enforcement is based purely on complaints.” She said she would docket a resolution to amend the local law.

In his comments to the council, Johnson said the courts had found similar efforts to regulate political signs unconstitutional.

“It’s not right. The most important right is the freedom of speech, let’s remove this law,” he said.

Asked on Tuesday how she would amend the ordinance, Vella-Wilkinson said she would like to see it stripped of the 60- and 14-day requirements and a provision that the city has the right to remove signs posted on city property. She pointed out some regulatory measures are necessary to ensure that political signs on private property don’t block highway visibility.

DeCorte said no additional citations on political signs have been issued since the Johnson case. He said for informational purposes, a summation of the city law was provided to all candidates.

Comments

20 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • richardcorrente

    Is this a matter of "freedom of speech" or "freedom to have any political sign, any size, at any time prior to the election"?

    I spoke to Al DeCorte 10 months ago. I learned what you can do and can't. No lawn sign more than 16 square feet, not sooner than 60 days prior to a primary, if you are in one or the election if you are not. No signs attached to a telephone pole or a traffic sign or a tree. Any candidate can look it up in the Warwick Zoning Ordinances 803.D. DeCorte explained that billboards, vehicles signs, and print ad signs do not apply to the ordinance.

    Enforcement is another issue; one that I will monitor closely. If Republicans get away with breaking this law (remember that we have a Republican Mayor) but Democrats don't then I will be the first one to call the ACLU. However, the way it looks to me, those that are violating the zoning law are not protected by freedom of speech. No one is stopping them from stating their message just as long as they do it without breaking the zoning law.

    Steven Brown, the executive director for the ACLU is a brilliant man, but in my opinion he is over zealous to help regarding this issue. If it ever went to court, I think, (and I am not an attorney) the ACLU would lose.

    Sorry Dean. The rest of the Warwick citizens have rights too. In the interest of "good faith" shouldn't we all conform to one standard? The standard the Zoning Board set seems to be a fair one, at least to me.

    Thanks for reading this.

    Enjoy your Summer. Enjoy your campaign.

    Richard Corrente

    Endorsed Democrat for Mayor

    Thursday, July 21, 2016 Report this

  • davet1107

    Mr. Corrente,

    I respectfully (and perhaps vehemently) disagree with you. In the article the ACLU says that the ordinance is unconstitutional and I believe they provided Mr. Johnson with court opionons that state such. Furthermore, it is most certainly a free speech issue. The notion that the city or state can tell me when I can display a political lawn sign on my own private property is ludicrous. The city or state can ,and does, limit the size of the sign, how far away it can be from adjacent properties, how far from the road, that it can't obstruct traffic sight lines, and more, but it can not tell me when I can display it. If I want to keep my campaign sign on the front lawn of my personal property for six months after the election, the city or state should not be able to stop me from doing so. The sign mounted on the vehicle in front of your headquarters has been relatively stationary for quite a long time so to allow that, but not allow a simple lawn sign to be displayed on private property is just a distinction without a difference. You can not seriously support this ordinance. Lastly, your attempt to make this a party issue where Republicans are rying to "get away" with something is peculiar, since the vast majority of signs that were up "illegally' were for candidated from your party.

    Thursday, July 21, 2016 Report this

  • Keyman95

    Constitutional or not, the law is the law, and "getting a jump" is an unfair advantage against those following the rules

    Thursday, July 21, 2016 Report this

  • richardcorrente

    Dear Dave1107 and Keyman95,

    Thank you for your comments.

    Dave, I sometimes agree with you but this time I respectfully don't. No one is stopping them from "freedom of speech" in my opinion. But that is just my opinion and, like political signs, it seems everyone has one.

    As far as jumping the gun and putting up those signs, I will wait until 60 days before the election as a courtesy to all, like the law (and Keyman95) says I am supposed to.

    I am having a fundraiser at Lemongrass on August 8th from 5 to 8 PM (1138 Post Rd.) Please join me. I would love to meet you both. Until then viist www.correntemayorwarwick.com

    Thanks.

    Richard Corrente

    Endorsed Democrat for Mayor

    Thursday, July 21, 2016 Report this

  • Scal1024

    First of all "Keyman" your statement "constitutional or not the law is the law" is funny. If you don't see a contradiction in that statement, then I certainly hope you're not running for any office.

    Rick, I disagree with you on this issue. I don't believe the government should be deciding what signs stay up and which come down. This isn't a party issue and to make it one is not fair. If a sign is on private property and meets the criteria, i don't see the problem. You have a large sign over a vehicle next to a main road. How is that allowed but other lawn signs are not? I believe this should be changed in order to make the system more fair to every candidate.

    Thursday, July 21, 2016 Report this

  • richardcorrente

    Dear Scal1024,

    As always I respect your comments.

    However;

    1.Government is not deciding "if" just "how". I think that is fair if we all have to play by the same rules.

    2. I agree. It isn't a party issue. I didn't make it one. I said "If".

    3.You referred to my sign as a "lawn sign". It isn't. It's a vehicle sign. Different rules Scal, and I am following them.

    Finally, I believe that the system is fair and it does apply equally to us all.

    I am having a fundraiser on August 8th at Lemongrass (1138 Post Rd) from 5 to 8 PM. Please come as my guest. I would love to meet you and Dave1107 too. Hope to see you then. Please visit my website at www.correntemayorwarwick.com in the meantime.

    Thanks.

    Richard Corrente

    Endorsed Democrat for Mayor

    Thursday, July 21, 2016 Report this

  • Scal1024

    Rick, putting a limit on the amount of time a sign can be up before the election is restrictive. I said government shouldn't decide which signs stay up and which come down...that is exactly what they are doing. Next, you would have to tell me where I called your sign a "lawn sign". I never said that! I only suggested that if lawn signs are being given a time frame, then maybe that should apply to any and all signs.

    What if government decided that campaigns should be restricted to only the 3 months prior to the primary? As someone who had to get your name out there, it would put you at a huge disadvantage. Now put yourself in the position of these candidates trying to do the same thing with much less time. I think putting a sign is a minor way of getting their name out there. I respect your comments also, I was a little surprised that you've taken the stance you have, but I'm happy to hear you out.

    Thursday, July 21, 2016 Report this

  • Thecaptain

    However gentlemen, you all seem to forgetting one thing. There is existing ordinance on political signage in this city. Due to that ordinance, and in the absence of the existing ordinance being challenged and the ordinance re-written, the ordinance is in force. So Rick, what that means is when your associate and political ally Wilkinson, erected a sign on a fixed pole , outside of the interior of the building, that sign was in violation of the ordinance. By the way, I have the ordinance and the ruling from the city. Much like the sign that you erected Rick, on your campaign headquarters, although the real estate management has a permit for signage, your campaign headquarters sign was illegal when erected on the building due to the existing ordinance, much like Mayor Avedisians sign on his campaign headquarters has been illegal for years.

    So Rick, as a construction inspector by trade, I, (we) rely on one statement , and one statement only. Is the current issue at hand in accordance , or not in accordance with the applicable statute? You will find that your sign, Wilkinsons, and the mayors, were all in direct violation of the ordinance at the time the sign was erected.

    Thursday, July 21, 2016 Report this

  • longtimewarwickite

    Mr Corrente,

    I realize that the massive sign in front of your headquarters is on a vehicle, so therefore you've legally skirted the law. However, since that vehicle is always there, I see no technical difference between that massive sign that has been there for months, and the little lawn sign in my yard that may have been placed there a week or 2 early.

    Friday, July 22, 2016 Report this

  • Scal1024

    Captain, thanks for the input on this. In your opinion would this ordinance hold up to a legal challenge?

    Some of what you said gets to my point, and that is that the way it is currently being enforced is allowing some signs to stay and others not to . I feel that sets a dangerous precedent unless this law is challenged/rewritten. This isn't about which candidate had their signs taken down, it's about fairness for all candidates in the future. Other than "this is what's on the books" there isn't much of a compelling reason (that I've heard) for why this should stay in place.

    Friday, July 22, 2016 Report this

  • wheelchairman

    Well Richard thank you for commenting

    As someone who has done his Research on the issue I have a few things to say in response to your comment saying Warwick citizens have rights too.

    You are right. The Warwick of Citizens have rights and I did in fact break the Ordnance. You got me.

    Here's the rub though....I also have the right to challenge selective enforcement of this law. No other candidate was asked to take his signs down, but it's ok only my rights were trampled not the majority. I also then fought against the unconstitutional ordnance. I know, I know you think it's just. Luckily I have case history and the Superme Court to agree with me. Don't believe me please look up City of Ladue v Gallo and Reed v Town of Gilbert, Arizona.

    See Richard Warwick needs someone who will goes to bat for that lone voice, not just the majority. I now know Scott is that man. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my article though.

    Friday, July 22, 2016 Report this

  • Kammy

    Mr. Corrente,

    I find it rather funny that you are usually the first to post a comment and respond as if this forum is for you and you only. I think that using the media and social networking is a very smart move, however, you may be doing yourself more harm than good with your multiple responses. I do a lot of research prior to elections to ensure I have made the right choice. For me personally, I do not know you. I have learned a great deal about you and how you think through the comment section of the Beacon. There is a particular tone, somewhat condescending, that I find off-putting. You strike me a bit like Elorza. No political experience, only business/private sector. What do you bring to the table?

    Friday, July 22, 2016 Report this

  • richardcorrente

    Dear Scal1024,

    You said "How is that allowed but "other lawn signs" are not. I took that as you saying my sign was in the same category as a lawn sign. Sorry. Also, I deeply respect our rights to have signs and, in fact never commented on the "too early" issue, but I do believe we should take into consideration the 80,000 taxpayers that have to look at our signs. Do they need to see more than the zoning regulations say are sufficient? My opinion is "no", but that's just my opinion.

    Dear Captain,

    According to Al DeCorte, your own campaign headquarters are exempt. He said it is a rented sign just like a billboard since we rent the office and that is the sign on the office. You will note Avedisian has his up year-long.

    Dear longtimewarwickite,

    I never complained about you putting up your sign "a week or 2 early", I just quoted what I was told by the Building Director, Al DeCorte. I do think that your comment that I "skirted the law" is incorrect. I learned what the law was and followed it. You said you see no technical difference? You broke the law. I followed the law. Kind of a big difference, don't you agree?

    Dear wheelchairman,

    I never commented on you being singled out to take your signs down because I didn't know you were! I made my opinion known because that is my right under the 1st amendment. Remember Dean, it's only an opinion.

    Dear Kammy,

    I comment when I read the Beacon. If I am first to do so, should I apologize? Does it matter? Can my written comments have a "condescending tone"? I don't think so but if you would like to hear the sound of my voice call me at 338-9900. Asking me what I bring to the table can be thought of as "judgmental". I have an idea. Visit my website at www.correntemayorwarwick.com learn all about my platform. Write down ANY hard question you would like to ask and then call and ask? I don't want you or anyone to feel off-putting about me. I try to be as open and honest and clear as anyone can be. As far as the political experience, I like to think of myself as having an unblemished record running against a Mayor who raised your taxes every year for 16 years in a row. I find that "off-putting" and when he says that RIPTA is "now in a much better place" after assets plummeted by $14,703,460 a year, liabilities skyrocketed by $79,579,486 a year and income crashed by $2,554,279 per year (that's $1,400 EVERY DAY !!), I find that level of arrogance to be the very definition of the word "condescending".

    Kammy, As far as Elorza, he promised "no tax increase" and spent the first 90 days of his administration examining every dollar in and every dollar out to learn where Providence can save taxpayers money. I plan on following his good example. I look forward to your call.

    Enjoy your Summer

    Richard Corrente

    Endorsed Democrat for Mayor

    Friday, July 22, 2016 Report this

  • richardcorrente

    Dear Dean ,

    You told me that you had the Supreme Court case history to prove your point. You referenced "City of Ladue v Gallo". I couldn't find it but if you meant "City of Ladue v Gilleo" it involved a lady that had a sign on her lawn that said "Say no to the Persian Gulf". That is NOT a "vote for me" kind of sign. She was just stating her opinion, and I agree that she had a first amendment right to do so.

    Your second case "Reed v Town of Gilbert" is a case of "more stringent restrictions on signs involving meetings of a non-profit than other messages", another case that has absolutely nothing to do with the self promotion we offer on our "vote for me" election signs, mine included. For the record I agree that there should NOT be more restrictions on these non-profit-message types of signs.

    How those 2 unrelated Supreme Court cases make our City Ordinance unconstitutional is beyond me. One has nothing to do with the other.

    Sorry Dean. You don't have the Supreme Court behind you on this one. Good luck in your campaign.

    Richard Corrente

    Endorsed Democrat for Mayor

    Friday, July 22, 2016 Report this

  • FASTFREDWARD4

    In the good old days we would get the plows and plow them down. This is so silly it went to court when linc was in the corner office. you can put up a sign anytime you want. watch the outcome. I can see the captain did not step up to save our city.

    Saturday, July 23, 2016 Report this

  • wheelchairman

    Yes your right on the name of the case..dang autocorrect.

    Did you read the ordnance in which the Supreme Court ruled on? Here I'll copy and paste it.

    First, "ideological signs", which contained "a message or ideas for noncommercial purposes", could be up to twenty square feet in size and could be placed in any "zoning district" for any length of time.[16] Second, "political signs", which included content "designed to influence the outcome of an election called by a public body", could be no larger than thirty two square feet on nonresidential property and sixteen square feet on residential property.[17] Additionally, political signs could only be displayed "up to 60 days before a primary election and up to 15 days following a general election".[18] Third, “temporary directional signs relating to a qualifying event", which directed "pedestrians, motorists, and other passersby" to events hosted by non-profit organizations, could be no larger than six square feet.[19] Additionally, temporary directional signs relating to a qualifying event could be displayed no earlier than twelve hours before the start of a qualifying event and no later than one hour after the end of the event; these signs could only be displayed in private property or public rights-of-way, but no more than four signs could be placed on a single property at the same time.[20]

    That 2nd provision in which was overturned......by the Supreme Court.......looks really familiar.

    The reason why this case was important and I referenced was that it overturned the provisions on size and time period on any sign which "are designed to influence the outcome of an election".

    Wait I know what your going to say , the Church sued because of the 3rd provision, and you would be correct. However the case involved the whole Ordnance. The Court ruled on the whole Ordnance. They ruled against it.

    The reason I brought up City of Ladue v Gilleo, was that the city can not make ordnances to ban signs based on time , place and manner. (Sound familiar)

    If you would like to discuss this I live at 144 Essex Rd or we could keep hashing this out here.

    Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelchairman

    Dean

    Saturday, July 23, 2016 Report this

  • richardcorrente

    Dear friendly neighborhood wheelchairman,

    That is more like it. Tell you what. Let's put this on hold until after we both win our elections and whoever wins by the bigger margin buys the coffee and danish for us both. I would really like to dissect this issue with you, just not now.

    Until then, much luck on your campaign.

    Rick

    Saturday, July 23, 2016 Report this

  • RISchadenfreude

    Once the election is over, the wire sign frames make great trellises for tomato, pepper, etc. plants and the signs are good for insulating the bottoms of doghouses and pet cages- I walk or drive around and volunteer to remove them for folks, most of whom are grateful to have the debris removed.

    The downside of having a sign in your yard for a Republican candidate is that some "accepting", "inclusive" and "tolerant" liberals may steal the sign, egg your house, key your car, etc.

    Monday, July 25, 2016 Report this

  • Thecaptain

    To set the record straight, here is the code taken directly from the Warwick Code of Ordinances. Also, being a business owner and having a sign I've been down the road with the building department. Also, Rick, this is why you were told months ago that you could not have a sign on your won property on Greenwich Ave.

    (D)

    Political signs, nonilluminated, incidental to a city, state, or federal election or referendum, or signs which are political in nature. Such signs shall be constructed of durable material, and shall be prohibited from trees, traffic signs or utility poles. Such signs shall be erected not more than 60 days prior to such election or referendum, or in any event, no premises shall have a sign erected for more than 120 days in any calendar year. Political signs relating to any election or referendum shall be removed within 14 days after said election or referendum. In all districts, such signs shall [are] not to exceed 16 square feet in area per side.

    Monday, July 25, 2016 Report this

  • Kammy

    Mr. Corrente,

    I did meet you in person. You were in the parking lot of Dave's Market last weekend. I stand by my opinion.

    Wednesday, August 3, 2016 Report this