Councillors debate unenforceable political sign ordinance

By Barbara Taormina

The Revere City Council had a mixed reaction to Ward 3 Councillor Anthony Cogliandro’s motion calling for a public hearing to repeal the city’s ordinance on posting political signs. City councillors and the Elections Department have received complaints about signs going up too early. Elections Department staff have been told to explain to anyone with a complaint that the ordinance is unenforceable.

The Supreme Court ruled several years ago that political signs on private property are considered free speech protected under the First Amendment. “The ordinance is unconstitutional,” said Cogliandro. “There is no reason the council has an unenforceable ordinance on the books.”

The city’s ordinance dictates when signs can be posted, when they must be taken down, the number of signs per candidate, the size of the lettering, and zones where signs can be posted, among other things. The ordinance is meant to discourage the sign clutter that occurs around elections and to create a sense of fairness.

“We used to have a gentleman’s agreement, but no one followed it,” said Cogliandro.

But he stressed it is an unconstitutional ordinance. “If you want to put a sign up, it’s your right,” he added.

But not all councillors agreed with a repeal. “We’ve never had a problem,” said Ward 2 Councillor Ira Novoselsky. “I think the ordinance works. I wrote it. The city solicitor said it was okay. People put signs up on time and take them down on time. Leave it and let people obey it,” said Novoselsky, adding that a flurry of campaign signs, especially those not removed in time, makes Revere look like a second-hand city.

Ward 1 Councillor Joanne McKenna also objected to the sign pollution. “Aesthetically, it’s not a good look,” said McKenna.

Other councillors felt the signs distracted drivers and, in some cases, obstructed views of roadways. And some questioned if the sign clutter lowered property values.

Still, the ordinance is unenforceable, and the Elections Department favors a repeal because it causes confusion. The City Council will hold a public hearing on repealing the ordinance on September 29.