thee
Member Profile
this was a topic a few months ago, but the problem persists. local artists spend a lot of time money and effort on this and to have the posters systematically removed in such a timely, well-ordered manner seems quite fishy. this is a rather hot topic among the WS artist community and we WILL get to the bottom of it.
http://westseattleblog.com/2010/02/here-today-gone-tomorrow-west-seattle-artists-poster-plight
I tear them down. If they are cool, show large breasts, advocate legalizing marijuana, they stay. If they promote world peace, grunge, lost pets, drum lessons, the go.
I agree, very annoying, and it's been illegal for several years to rip down flyers/posters; the fight went all the way to supreme court; artists and other small businesses have the right to communicate via flyers/posters on public poles, and I wish the idiots who do rip them down would get caught and stop; it's really not much different from breaking a window at someone's business; costs money and a violation, steals hard work put into making signs and posting, and the income that could come to those who have posted, if the signs had been left up for people to read
~
and I like seeing flyers/posters from others, shows our diversity, communicates things of interest, much that I would never see otherwise
actually, in Sept 2004, in City of Seattle v Mighty Movers, the WA State Supreme Court held that "...that, for purposes of state constitutional analysis, municipal utility poles are a nonpublic forum and that the city's prohibition of postings on city-owned utility poles is constitutional, the court reverses the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstates the [Superior Court's] judgment [that the utility poles are not a traditional public forum and that the ordinance is reasonable and content and viewpoint neutral.]" (152 Wn.2d 343)
However, in Dec 2002, following the Court of Appeal's decision (overturning the Superior Court's findings) that utility poles, etc. are a traditional public forum, the City Council passed an ordinance to change the Municipal Code to allow posters on utility poles with some restrictions (SMC 15.48.105). This ordinance was passed despite the City's decision to appeal the Court of Appeals decision. Technically, since the City won the Supreme Court appeal, the previous ordinance (SMC 15.48.100) banning the posters could be reinstated; however, the City chose to continue to allow postings on utility poles.
thanks metrognome; can you clarify your dates here? they don't make sense
~
back when all this was going through the courts and city, I had all the details, but had major computer crash 2 yrs ago, so lost it all
~
what I do know for sure, it that IT IS LEGAL to post flyers on poles, as public forum, and there are some basic rules like dating your poster and taking down within reasonable time; but there’s still someone/s ripping flyers down, despite the fact they are legal and often primary way for artists/many small businesses to advertise in their neighborhoods
Aside from the legality of posting, what is the requirement with regards to disposing of your sign? They'll eventually fall and become trash if left long enough. Along with being able to post I hope that the poster has the obligation to ultimately dispose of the sign as well.
Hmmm while it is legal to post them...it is NOT illegal to tear them down. Your detritus looks like crap to me....and few if any ever do the other part of the ordnance... remove them. I think hey look like hell...not much better than a 78 Torino on blocks in your front yard. Say...how about this... "I have some posters..would you be offended if I placed them in front of your business/home?" No? that civil courtesy too much of a burden for ya? OK then...down they come.
Removing trash in a "timely, well-ordered manner" is not "fishy" - it is responsible. It is not OK to blanket walls and poles with posters that quickly disintegrate and become someone else's mess to clean up. Your artistic energy would be better spent elsewhere.
Diane -- sorry, I know that was confusing, but it was confusing any way I wrote it. Here's a timeline:
1994: City passes ordinance 117066, codified at SMC 15.48.100-130, making it illegal to post handbills, etc. on city-owned utility poles, etc. and making poster liable for costs of removing them.
1999: City bills Mighty Movers for removing their posters, files suit in Superior Court when MM refuses to pay; MM countersues and alleges ordinance is unconstitutional infringement on free speech.
2000: Superior Court rules that utility poles are not a traditional public forum, and the ordinance is reasonable and content and viewpoint neutral.
2002: Court of Appeals reverses Superior Court decision, ruling that utility poles are a traditional public forum and that the restrictions were overbroad because they swept within their prohibitions constitutionally protected speech. City appeals to WA Supreme Court.
2002: Despite pending appeal, City Council passes ordinance 121038 reflecting appellate decision and allowing posters on utility poles with some restrictions (SMC 15.48.105).
2004: WA Supreme Court reverses Court of Appeals and rules that utility poles are a nonpublic forum and the 1994 ordinance constitutionally prohibited posting on city utility poles. However, the city leaves the 2002 ordinance in place.
The best place to find the court decisions is http://www.mrsc.org/wa/courts/index_dtSearch.html (search for 'posters telephone poles')
I'll post the current SMC in a separate post.
Here is the current code (http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/toc/table.htm):
Seattle Municipal Code
Title 15 - STREET AND SIDEWALK USE
Subtitle I Street Use Ordinance
Chapter 15.48 - Miscellaneous Acts
SMC 15.48.105 Conformance to applicable regulations for posting.
A. Handbills, signs and posters may be affixed to City-owned utility poles, lamp poles and traffic control devices under the control of the Seattle
Department of Transportation, except for freestanding stop signs and yield signs, and their posts, in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation pursuant to Chapter 3.02, the Seattle Administrative Code. Those rules shall regulate the time, place and manner of posting so as to advance the public purposes stated above so that (1) members of the public are afforded reasonable access to exercise their free speech rights, including being able to place signs at a height determined by the Director to be reasonable, consistent with other public purposes, which height shall not be greater than twelve (12) feet from the surface of the ground; and (2) handbills, signs, and posters affixed to any City-owned traffic control device, utility pole or lamp post will not unreasonably (a) contribute to a traffic hazard; (b) contribute to a safety hazard to anyone working on a utility pole, lamp pole or traffic control device; (c) contribute to a risk of fire; (d) contribute to visual blight; or (e) cause damage to City-owned property.
B. Pursuant to Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 23.55, handbills, signs and posters may also be affixed to City-owned poster boards and kiosks that are designated for handbills and signs.
C. A public agency may, with permission of the City, post traffic, parking and other regulatory signs on City-owned structures.
D. Other than as provided in this section, it is unlawful for anyone to affix any handbill, sign or poster upon a City-owned structure, or any
City-owned tree or shrubbery in any public place. City-owned structures include, but are not limited to, bridges and overpasses, monorail supports, retaining walls, fences, street furniture and shelters, and poles and posts not under the control of Seattle Transportation. Wires and appurtenances to any City-owned structure are also a City-owned structure.
there are three other sections (.110, .120 and .130) on removal which are too long to add here.
http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/toc/15-48.htm
note: SMC 23.55 is the land use code for signs.
http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/toc/23-55.htm
Wow. A blatant discriminatory attack against the mentally ill. Would it have been justified to say that whoever did it was of color, or sexual preference?
Cait
Member Profile
I'm all for being respectful but that is one hell of a stretch, I Wonder.
SarahScoot
Member Profile
I didn't think anything quite as extreme as I Wonder's above comment, but the comment by "texas" did make me do a quick mental inventory of DSM-IV diagnostic criteria. Granted, I only have an undergraduate education in psychology as a minor, but as far as I know, removing posters from poles is not a symptom of mental illness.
Believing the posters were placed there by the government in some vast conspiracy? Maybe a symptom.
Let me put it in a way that won't get the comment deleted and won't get some sensitive soul's knickers in a knot. I have a relative who suffers from OCD and other issues (mental issues), who has been hospitalized in the past, but is now well enough to live at home with medication. He spends his days going up and down certain streets within about a 10-block radius, in a certain order, taking down all the signs on telephone poles, and doing other certain ritualized behaviours, I think he picks up all the cigarette butts on the sidewalk, etc. This is not in Washington state. He suffers from a mental illness. I don't know anything about the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, etc. As far as I know, obsessive-compulsive behaviour can be very debilitating, and as far as I know, it's considered an illness. This is not a close relative so I don't know much more than that. This is what his mother has told me. If you find this offensive, I am sorry. A lot of people suffer from OCD in various forms or degrees, and there's no reason to keep it behind closed doors or buried under deleted comments, or pretend that it doesn't exist.
thanks so much for all the details metrognome; I wasn't aware of the 2004 reversal, very glad the city did the right thing
metro..."contributing to visual blight"....that could be someone's argument for taking the posters down. One man's blight is another man's beauty? I like the ordinance, but find that particular criterium (?) a bit vague?
B-squared
Member Profile
Anonyme hit the nail on the head. after a week or so in Seattle weather, the handbills become trashy looking and fall apart. this is visual blight. i would also consider extreme redundancy of posting visual blight as well. i recall that building perpetually under construction across from taco time being plastered by handbills. probably still is. too much is too much.
aaaarrrrggghhhhh ... don't know if it is Comcast or WSB, but the connectivity problems ate my first comment.
JanS -- if the city ever used that clause by itself to enforce the ordinance and was challenged in court, I'm guessing it would be found to be 'unconstitutionally vague.' As the city didn't go back and reimplement the original ordinance after the SC ruling, I'm guessing they have given up on this as an issue. That often happens if the elected official who pushed the issue leaves office.
Also, this ordinance just refers to city property, not private property. As I recall, safety of City Light workers climbing poles was one of the big reasons for the original ordinance; I would suspect that *if* the ordinance is enforced much these days it is under the safety clause.
The artisan community of WS....whew...well I have taken the art walk tour a few times... it's fortunate for some that "artist" is a self anointed term...and not subject to any standards or criteria...WS poster 'artists" truly have only themselves as patrons...lots of the posters are.. well, just plan old crap.. I don't like them in front of my house....and since city ordnance also tasks me with the maintenance of the divider stip between sidewalk and street...removing trash is what I do.
The artisan community of WS....whew...well I have taken the art walk tour a few times... it's fortunate for some that "artist" is a self anointed term...and not subject to any standards or criteria...WS poster 'artists" truly have only themselves as patrons...lots of the posters are.. well, just plan old crap.. I don't like them in front of my house....and since city ordnance also tasks me with the maintenance of the divider stip between sidewalk and street...removing trash is what I do.
He's an economist, an art critic, AND a trash collector! What can't Kootch do?
pretty much nothing....nice to get peer recognition.
I am also a property owner...not renter...and yes indeed I do make subjective decisions about postings in my front yard. That is after all the intent of art is it not? To provoke thought, stimulate, inspire, action...? I like for instance, a bold, san serif font, with a red white and blue border featuring of all things a stylized rendering of a pachyderm, raised trunk holding an American flag...you can post those on the front of my house anyday..no jackasses though.
metrognome: Thanks. I know we can always count on you for the legal research. In the ordinance you quoted, it said:
. . . handbills, signs and posters may also be affixed to City-owned poster boards and kiosks that are designated for handbills and signs.
I'm for more kiosks and poster boards. In neighborhoods that have them, you generally see less posters decaying on poles. And posters on boards aren't as "up in your face" either, so that should satisfy kootchman's objection to mass postering on the grounds of "bad taste."
***********************************************************************************
I Wonder: Thank you for your comment (#11) defending people of sexual preference. I happen to be a person of sexual preference myself.
Or rather, I happen to be a person of sexual preference. Myself.
DP: a ;) and a thumbs up, both to kiosks and sexual preferences.
You must log in to post.
All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^
westseattleblog
West Seattle Blog
West Seattle Blog