Bye bye roadside signs

Recently, I had the great pleasure of chatting about low voter participation with Mike Farwell (on the cleverly named Mike Farwell Show).

It was a great conversation that you can listen to starting at the 64:20 mark here

However the segment before mine is the focus of this post: Election signs.

Do they serve a purpose? Are they a distraction? A waste of money?

I think the answer is yes to all. One thing is clear to anyone driving through the city, there are A LOT of lawn signs along the roads,  at major intersections, up on hills, over here and over there. And yes, there are some on people’s lawns.

Mike proposed a change that I am repeating here, and supporting.

Let’s limit lawn signs to:…….wait for it….. LAWNS!  Meaning private property.

Let’s get rid of the clutter on our roadways, reduce the cost to ALL candidates, and look at some 21st century ways to allow for public announcements.

I am all for expression, and the intent is certainly not to prevent anyone from getting their name out. But IMO if you cannot get anyone to put your lawn sign up on their lawn, then know…

Many will state that public signs are a way for lesser known candidates to get their name out there. I personally believe that lawn signs favour the incumbents and those with more funding. Signs, bought once, can be reused giving the incumbent a leg up at each election against the first timer who most buy their initial arsenal of signs to compete with the incumbents “free” signs.

I am sure if we got some feedback from residents and sign vendors we could come up with some creative ideas to maintain the intent of public roadways signs that doesn’t result in the current sign war we see on our major roads.

If elected as Ward 1 councillor for Cambridge, I will propose that signs be limited to private property in the next municipal election, subject to a robust discussion on alternate ways to allow all candidates a public, low cost way to get their name out there.

Happy Tuesday, Kevin



%d bloggers like this: