District of West Vancouver council will decide on Monday on a motion to ban political signs from all public property, a move two councillors say will protect community appearance, improve road safety and save taxpayer money during election campaigns.
Peter Lambur and Sharon Thompson will bring the motion to the July 20 council meeting, directing staff to draft an amendment to Election Sign Bylaw No. 5114, 2021, that would prohibit election signs on District boulevards. Signs are currently allowed on boulevards under certain conditions.
Sign up for news alerts from the North Shore Daily Post
According to the report, public property belongs to everyone and should not be used to promote a political candidate or party.
The motion argues that large numbers of election signs clutter streetscapes, parks and boulevards, and that signs placed near intersections, medians or bike lanes can block sightlines and endanger drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. It also raises environmental and cost concerns, noting most signs are made of non-recyclable plastic and that staff spends time and money enforcing sign rules, removing abandoned signs and disposing of them after elections.
According to the report, candidates would be better served putting that time into voter engagement, debates and policy communication rather than managing roadside sign campaigns.
If approved, the bylaw amendment will strip out the current siting rules and replace them with a blanket ban on election signs across District property, including boulevards, medians, sidewalks, parks, trees, mailboxes, signposts and bridges. Signs would remain allowed on private property with the owner’s consent, provided they are freestanding and not attached to fences or utility infrastructure.
The amendment would also shrink the maximum sign size from three square metres to 1.5 square metres and cap sign height at 1.8 metres, down from 2.5 metres. Rules on impounding boulevard signs and requiring 48 hours’ notice before placing them would be scrapped, since boulevard signage would no longer be permitted at all.
According to the report, the changes are meant to protect the neutrality of public spaces while cutting costs for taxpayers. Council gave notice of the motion at its July 6 meeting. Debate is expected once it is formally moved and seconded on Monday.
Excellent ideas based on logic! Please pass this bylaw!
A point:
Condo and apartment residents have no private land on which to place political party ad signage. Therefore, the practice of placing party signs on private property is undemocratic and unfair.
@Gale, the bylaw is to prohibit signage on PUBLIC property. If “placing party signs on private property is undemocratic and unfair” and placing signage on public property (which as a taxpayer is YOUR collective community property), including the right of way portion in front of every private lot, is deemed illegal, then where are signs to be posted?
This has very little to do with public safety and all to do with protecting the vested and monied interests of political alliances and incumbents. Was this report/bylaw proposal initiated by public clamour or from inside City Hall?
Heck, without those signs, most people would have no idea a local election is taking place, much less who may be a candidate.
Having municipal workers collect remnant signage post election is a small price to pay for levelling the democratic field. Those costs can be recovered via a small candidate registration bond or deposit system; collect all your signs, get your money back.
Having staff direct what/how candidate voter engagement should occur is most Orwellian.
Would infringe Charter Rights to expression. Unhomed, renters, children (people not on title ) would have freedom of political speech removed. Sightlines. Who cares. 3 months every election year is a small price to pay for a free and democratic society. Council is courting Charter litigation. Waste of money.
That’s ridiculous – there are LOTS of places where campaign signs are routine – I live in Lynn Valley and there are “Welcome to Lynn Valley” signs on both Lynn Valley Road and Mountain Highway and at election time those locations are loaded with signs.
Now if you’re suggesting they should heavily fine candidates who don’t get their signs down within a specified time after the election I’m good with that – though I note that DNV Councillor Herman Mah has said he likes to add a small sign saying “Thanks for your support!” the morning after the election and said he had had all his signs down within 5-7 days afterwards (can’t remember what the DNV bylaw requires but he keeps to it)