COACHING, PROGRAMS, & GROUPS IN RICHMOND

Dear Editor, Re: “Council this week: soil use, political signs, speed zones,” Online, Jan. 23.

Residents of Richmond are all too familiar with the proliferation of election signs that have become a mainstay for aspirants to office.

City council is now proposing to ban election signs on public property and curtail signs on private property

That is a complete over-reach to a questionable problem.

The need for amendments apparently came from sign complaints from the 2022 election.

A total of 20 from 230,000 residents. Hardly a popular groundswell.

And no empirical input from the citizens of Richmond. Regardless, most residents can likely point out minor annoyances.

Instead of considering enforcement of the current bylaws, the proposal is to essentially “gut“ political signage, during elections in Richmond.

Granted, excessive and illegal signs should not be tolerated particularly where they obscure intersections and road signs. Current bylaws need to be enforced.

Candidates who do not take down signs after elections, or other obvious violations, are accountable to the current bylaws, and can be fined.

Most election signs are not an environmental problem. Current signage is recyclable and the frames can be re-used.

Signs, contrary to the bylaw assertion, do not favour those with more campaign dollars.

Incumbents often spend tens of thousands on media ads, while spending less than five per cent of their budget on much cheaper road signs. But essential for lowbudget candidates.

The proposal to require an official legal document of permission from the City of Richmond to place a sign on private property is bureaucratic over-reach designed to significantly curtail the practice.

It is also an obvious affront to “freedom of political expression.“

The suggestion the enforcement of these new restrictions will cost the taxpayer nothing is absurd. An office will have to process the legal paperwork for signs on private property, and designated “sign police“ will be required to ensure community compliance.

This “sledgehammer“ approach to some minor problems, that could mostly be handled by enforcing current bylaws, is ill-advised.

John Baines RICHMOND