Friday, the U-T noted that William Morrison had not filed his council candidacy papers by late afternoon, shortly before the 6pm filing deadline.
But Encinitas rules state that if no incumbent runs for the council seat, the filing deadline will be extended. So Morrison and any others interested have until Wednesday to file.
Long-time Cardiff resident and Navy veteran Al Lerchbacker also pulled papers and may enter the race.
The Coast News has a good article on the posting of campaign signs in residential areas, - shown was Catherine's Blakespear's election sign. The decades old city ordinance prohibits campaign signs prior to 30 days before the election.
ReplyDeleteCity officials are now saying that at the March 19, 2014 Council meeting the Council removed that prohibition and campaign signs can be out on residential property 6 months before the election. The only problem for the Council is that the action didn't happen. There was no agenda item about interpretation of a different section of the municipal code. No agenda item allowing the posting of campaign signs 6 months before the election.
The Council is in violation of the Brown Act.
The entire sign ordinance is a violation of the first amendment to the constitution, the right of freedom of speech, freedom of expression. Where's the ACLU when you need them ??
DeleteThis entire law is problematic. They claim that they are doing for freedom of speech, yet they say that the signs can only cover 3 square feet of area and that each residence can only have 1 sign. How is that freedom of speech? They have made themselves more year-round work for enforcement offices to make sure that sign blight fits into their definitions. That is NOT freedom of speech. This is another costly program that citizens never wanted.
DeleteWe should make a local ordinance in Encinitas forbidding all outdoor campaign signs as litter and fine people for random placement. Meanwhile, I'll be happy to help make them. :)
DeleteI'm a "Lerch Backer". Sorry, had to say it....
DeleteThere was an agenda item, with the City Attorney's partner, assistant or deputy city attorney, but also contracted attorney, Randal Morrison, of Sabine & Morrison, reporting.
DeleteMorrison's specialty is supposedly sign law. The amended ordinance is a modification of the ordinance (wrongly) in effect in 2012. It was unconstitutional the way it read, before.
The change in EMC was on the Consent Calendar, as far as I recall, after the informational report, for both of the "readings" of the changed code.
The city cannot prohibit "political speech" at any time on private property. It can regulate how large the signs can be, and maybe, how many signs are allowed, not sure. But someone could have a campaign sign up year round if she or he wanted to do so.
The council violated the Brown Act and the municipal code on March 19. From all indications it was a setup.
ReplyDeleteWhat, a Brown act violation, that's only the 1023 in row!
Delete1:45 PM
DeleteOh, pray tell how the council violated the Brown Act? The introduction of the sign ordinance amendment was a public hearing. Second reading of ordinances is frequently on consent.
There are more Brown Acts in town than tans.
ReplyDeleteCatherine Blakespear is in violation of the municipal code.
ReplyDeleteNot true. Encinitas Municipal Code has been modified, because it was unconstitutional, as it read, before, re sign law.
DeleteNo, the City shouldn't be able to restrict the size of a sign to three square feet, nor restrict someone from having more than one sign on private property. That is also overstepping the Constitution.
DeleteOur City is too busy playing God and cop; Council has become corrupted by its authority.
I agree. Where in the Constitution does it define sign sizes, 4:19?
DeleteYes indeed, Catherine has already been in violation for specifically placing candidate signage on public property which is not allowed. On a corner just off the property owners lot line and a couple of feet from the streets pavement, there it was. Being the insider that she is it is no big surprise but also being a lawyer one would think she would know better. Now if placing these in the public right of way is at this time is permitted I would appreciate being corrected in my assumption. I am quite sure someone will chime in one way or the other and I thank you ahead of time one way or the other. If there was more than the one I saw a day or so ago there surely will be many more about.
ReplyDelete4:19 PM
ReplyDeleteThe modification had nothing to do with putting campaign signs up six months before an election. Sabine said the 30 days was still in effect. Before Sabine's partner Morrison could give his report, Shaffer buzzed in to make a comment that signs could be put up six months before the election.
The change was done in the back room. Too bad Blakespear is going along with the troika.
The sign issue was openly discussed during a council meeting, with Morrison, who is Sabine's law partner, and Sabine himself contributing to the discussion.
DeleteWhether it was an agenda item or contained within a related agenda item, I don't remember.
But if you want to find out how it all went down rather than speculating and possibly making false assertions, all you have to do is go to the City's website, find the video of that meeting and watch it.
Shaffer also addressed the issue in a newsletter that followed the council's discussion and decision.
From Lisa Shaffer's newsletter:
Delete"Campaign Signs: If you see campaign signs out in people's yards or at business establishments, please know that it is now legal to put a campaign message sign anywhere that any other sign is allowed - this is a change from our previous campaign sign ordinance. You can put MORE signs out during the 30 days prior to the election, but when we were informed last year that it was illegal to have different rules for signs with different messages (ie, political content versus other non-commercial or commercial messages), we updated our ordinance. Campaign signs are still ILLEGAL on any public property, including medians, and on any private property where the owner has not given permission. There are still limits on sign size, and prior to the 30-day pre-election period, limits on quantity of signs. But if your favorite candidate has signs and wants to distribute them now, you can legally put one in your yard. I hope this year we can avoid another "signgate" and that we won't hear about signs being stolen or destroyed. I'm hoping for an "adult" campaign where we actually focus on the character, vision, and effectiveness of the candidates. What a concept!"
"Last year" so the council discussion and decision that changed the ordinance was in 2013 if anybody wants to find and watch the video.
Read the Coast News article. Shaffer comments are about the change in March, 2014. Shame on Gaspar and Muir for not speaking up and condemning the troika for the backroom dealing.
Delete11:10 PM
DeleteThe discussion by Shaffer eventually centered what would happen if municipal code section 2.16.040, campaign signs was eliminated. Morrison and Sabine had sketchy answers. Morrison didn't know that the signs chapter in zoning required a permit for temporary signs. Sabine didn't know the code requirement.
Morrison kept repeating that the message substitution section would satisfy the law. What came back in March was the "urgent" change in the campaign signs in section 2.16.040 and NOT the zoning chapter on signs.
If you people think the average voter in this town gives a $#|+ about the Constitutionality of a political sign ordinance, you need a hobby.
ReplyDeleteThere are important issues at stake in this election. This isn't one.
The word "integrity" comes to mind. If you are running for council, it is of the utmost importance that you, as a potential leader, follow the rules of the city. If you can't abide by the rules, you have no business running for office.
Delete5:29- The issue is important because it shows the hypocricy of this Council. Many were eager to jump on Stocks and Muir for putting up campaign sign a day earlier than the City said it could be done. Someone even did a You Tube video on their nighttime adventure. So, now that it is Catherine, is it OK? I don't see anything on an agenda item about changing the way it was when Muir and Stocks got their hands slapped.
ReplyDeleteMinutes from the March 19, 2014 meeting -
ReplyDeleteACTION:
Muir moved, Gaspar seconded to introduce Ordinance 2014-03 entitled " An
Ordinance Amending Encinitas Municipal Code Section 2.16.040 for Purposes of Clarifying the Authority to Display Noncommercial Message Signs in Addition to Political Message Signs at Election time." Motion carried. Ayes: Barth, Gaspar, Kranz, Muir. Nays: Shaffer.
Why did Shaffer vote no? Did she get confused on her role?
9:34 Political message signs at election time? So, when can they go up? How long before the election? When do they come down after the election?
ReplyDelete10:05 PM
ReplyDeleteLook up Municipal Code Section 2.16.040. Read the chapter.
So it sounds like catherine has allowed her supporters to post her signs illegally and this is so early in the season. Sadly, we are already reminded of such actions in the past by candidates that don't follow the rules. Too bad for you catherine but considering what an insider you already are I guess we shouldn't be too surprised.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone out there notices other signs for any candidate, to be fair, that are just off the property owners lot line and a couple of feet from the roadway on public property, make a note and let us know here.
It is clear signage on private property is not the problem and if you have supporters willing to post on their property all the more power to you and to any of the candidates.
Since you are a lawyer and obviously can comprehend as much and probably more than any of our current council members can, you have the ability to grasp what is permitted and what is not. Do yourself a favor and get this one thing right so we don't have to come back about this in the future.
This community is watching in spite of what the naysayers proclaim. It all matters and your name is on it. Get it right. Pretty simple really but only if you care. The result will become public rest assured.
To all the candidates, learn from catherine's blunder and don't follow her lead on posting your signs. I would post this critique the same for any of the candidates that I saw that had done what she has so don't go blaming this on some partisan attempt to discredit any single candidate. She just happens to be the first out the gate with her signs and the rest can learn from her mistake.
Read the FAQ: http://www.encinitasca.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=4372
ReplyDeleteIf you need more, read the code sections it cites.
As far as I can tell, there was no grand sign conspiracy, and there's not a weasel hiding in every bush.
Temporary signs require a permit. The FAQ on posting campaign signs outside the 30 day period is incorrect.
DeleteNo, the FAQ is correct. Posting political signs is okay outside the 30 day window. Read the code, with careful attention to the phrase "in addition."
DeleteIf you want to make accusations, go to court (you'll be laughed out).
No, Sabine will laugh. He will take this to court and charge taxpayers again after another of a long line of losses. The taxpayers pay him and his private law firm win or lose. Why does this council still listen to his poor advice?
DeleteWell if Sabine ever got fired here, he would be highly qualified for a position at Coast Lose Group!
DeleteStocks and Bond could make a lot of money consulting on sign placement, timing of placement etc, because they always managed to get in and extra day or two and the most spots in the public right of way....
ReplyDeleteI saw another of catherine's signs this morning in cardiff a foot or two from the pavement and just off the property owners lot line. She seems to be consistent in her signage postings. Tomorrow I will see if the homeowner is aware and has any opinion on the location.
ReplyDeleteI have seen signs in the right of way. I have seen a number of illegally placed signs that the City has taken away since they were not on private property. This new ordinance instead of protecting freedom of expression is creating more violations and more work for code enforcement. Also, it seems that Sabine and Morrison got to charge us extra for more of their usual standard of legal advice.
ReplyDelete