Per an email I just got, it appears that the Lee County Sign Ordinance that snagged two Governor candidates and the sitting Governor recently is actually in violation of State Law itself.
You see, per an email I got about 30 minutes ago, OCGA 16-7-58(a)(2) states (emphasis mine)
It shall be unlawful for any person to place posters, signs, or advertisements: On any private property unless the owner thereof or the occupier as authorized by such owner has given permission to place such posters, signs, or advertisements on such property; and, provided, further that no municipal, county, or consolidated government may restrict by regulation or other means the length of time a political campaign sign may be displayed or the number of signs which may be displayed on private property for which permission has been granted;
This means that three clauses in particular of the Lee County Sign Ordinance are in direct violation of this State law. The relevant portion of the Lee County Sign Ordinance in question is contained in Section 70-645, which states (bold emphasis mine):
(b) Signs not requiring a permit. Except as otherwise provided, the following on-site signs may be erected without securing a sign permit, subject however, to meeting all other applicable county codes and regulations.
…
(13) Political signs provided as follows:
a. The sign shall not be displayed earlier than 60 days prior to the primary election, general election or referendum it concerns.
b. The sign must be removed no later than seven days following the date of the primary election, general election or referendum it concerns. The owner of the property on which the sign is located will be responsible for removing the sign; provided, however, that a property owner shall have no responsibility where the sign has been placed on his property without his consent.
c. The sign shall not be lighted, either directly or indirectly.
d. The sign shall be located entirely on private property. It shall not be located, in whole or in part, on any public lands or public right-of-way and shall not be located on any trees, rocks or like objects.
e. The number of signs displayed shall be restricted to one sign per premise per candidate or issue.
f. Political signs shall not exceed four square feet in area in residential districts. In all other zoning districts, political signs shall not exceed nine square feet.
g. The planning director, code enforcement administrator, or other designated county employee shall, without notice, immediately remove or cause to be removed any and all political signs in violation of this section. The removal will be at the expense of the property owner.
I have requested that the entire Lee County Sign Ordinance be suspended in its entirety pending further review, in an email which I sent to Lee County Clerk Christi Dockery, Lee County Administrator Alan Ours, and each member of the Lee County Commission. Also in this email, I requested that this subject be added to the Agenda for next week’s meeting, and that I be allowed to present a modified Sign Ordinance to the Commissioners. That email is below the fold.
Now, how does this affect John Oxendine, Ray McBerry, and Sonny Perdue (as well as all other candidates)? As it stands right now, any signs they put up are STILL in violation of the Lee County Sign Ordinance until I can get it suspended. Meaning that they are STILL breaking the law, even though the law in question is violating State law. This is not a matter the individuals in question can simply choose to ignore, however, as there are right and just procedures in effect for correcting this issue – namely, going before the Commissioners to have them amend the Ordinance, and failing that, a legal case before court of competent jurisdiction.
No, Ray, you can’t throw the Commissioners in jail on felony charges.
I will continue to update on this developing story.
Here’s the email I sent:
To: Christi Dockery
CC: Alan Ours, Ed Duffy, Rick Muggridge, Bill Williams, Dennis Roland, Betty Johnson
Christi,Given #2 below, the Lee County Sign Ordinance as it currently stands thus violates State law and should be completely suspended pending complete review, which I request be put before the Commissioners at their meeting next week.
Sec 70-645 (13) governs political signs under this ordinance, and states:
a. The sign shall not be displayed earlier than 60 days prior to the primary election, general election or referendum it concerns.
b. The sign must be removed no later than seven days following the date of the primary election, general election or referendum it concerns. The owner of the property on which the sign is located will be responsible for removing the sign; provided, however, that a property owner shall have no responsibility where the sign has been placed on his property without his consent.
e. The number of signs displayed shall be restricted to one sign per premise per candidate or issue.These three clauses in particular violate the particular section of OCGA (16-7-58(a)(2)) that you just referenced.
If you will place this on the Agenda for next week’s meeting, I would like to address the Commissioners on this matter, where I will present my proposal for said revisions.
Thank you for your time,
Jeff
Jeff,
Most excellent! Although after reading that e-mail I am baffled at the County response.
If I remember correct, the Albany Sign Ordinance also has such a clause restricting the number of signs. However, I haven’t had an opportunity to verify that as fact or not just yet.
The new Albany sign ordinance, adopted in December 2009, restricts you to three signs — no matter the content — in residential areas.
And while the state law says that cities and counties can’t regulate political signs, Albany does, but (based on advice from a taxpayer-funded consultant) says it’s exempt from the state law because it differentiate between political signs and other signs.
Speaking of the Albany sign ordinance …
Do you realize that we live in a community that:
– allows me to put up to three signs in my yard at my home, but only allows me to put up one sign for my commercially zoned business!
– allows me to advertise anything I want with signage in my yard unless I have a business in my home; I’m not allowed to advertise that!
– allows me to advertise my neighbor’s home business, but not my own!
– prohibits me from putting four or more political (or any other kind of) signs in my yard, despite a state law saying that cities can’t regulate political signs.
Meanwhile, here are our two most recent editorials, both of which have some relevance to this topic and liberty in general.
We’re governed
by wing nuts
Georgia Trend Publisher Neely Young bravely and brilliantly nailed it on the head last month. He says we’re largely governed by wing nuts.
Wing nuts? You know … easier to loosen and not as hard to unscrew as regular nuts.
Bear with us, here.
Young says that wing nuts are the people in charge of government these days; he cited the Georgia statehouse and governor’s office, but certainly, the Albany City Commission and the Dougherty County School Board majority applies. They get into office seeming to have their heads screwed on, but their common sense and morals loosen as soon as they lay their head down on a pillow in a luxurious taxpayer-funded hotel room at a so-called conference or retreat at a vacation spot like Lake Blackshear, Calloway Gardens, Jekyll Island or Washington, D.C.
Wing nuts are socialists who purport to be otherwise (for example, they say they won’t raise taxes, but they do so, anyway). They got into office claiming to want represent people just like them. But then they drink the incumbent wing nuts’ Kool-Aid and convince themselves that government is all-knowing and more powerful than the people. They become one of government’s good-ole boys, even if they’re girls, and they disrespect the people who elected them. They keep the people who pay their salaries from attending some of public meetings and even deny taxpayers access to public information – something they wouldn’t have fathomed when they were just regular nuts.
Wing nuts propose the strangest socialist laws. Young cited one that would allow homeowners to plant drought-tolerant landscaping even if the practice is prohibited by the residents homeowners association. He probably doesn’t know about some of the liberty-denying and otherwise insane laws passed by Albany commissioners, who have decided on our behalves and without our input that cats must be walked on a leash; that chain-link fencing can’t be put in front yards, but chicken wire can; that couches and porches don’t mix; and that businesses in commercial areas can’t have two signs, but home-occupied businesses can.
Neely says Gov. Sonny Perdue may be the most classic of all wing nuts. The governor is so smart and people are so dumb, Perdue says, that the governor – not the people – should hire the state school superintendent, insurance commissioner, agriculture commissioner and labor commissioner. Wing nuts are prone to criminal activity, too. In another case of we-can-do-it-better-than-the-citizens, abolishing the Albany Water, Gas & Light Commission’s governing board was so important to Mayor Willie Adams and Commissioner Bob Langstaff that convinced their colleagues to join them in breaking the law in their unsuccessful effort to make it happen.
High on their power and rich on taxpayer-funded junkets and pay raises, wing nuts are laughing all the way to the bank. But, once again, another election is right around the corner. It’s another chance to fasten down government with some real nuts – those that won’t easily be unscrewed. Will we choose to be governed by a democracy – or will the wing nuts prove once again that they indeed are smarter than the people they represent?
Fence dispute is
government’s doing
Whether Ray Fajardo should have been able to erect an ornamental black fence in his front yard is one thing. Of course he should, unless subdivision covenants restrict it. It’s his property. How can government say otherwise without holding a citizen referendum?
But that’s not the point in a dispute that has rocked Fajardo’s Northwest Albany neighborhood. The meltdown isn’t simply about government’s restrictions on property rights, rather, as Fajardo’s next-door neighbor poignantly told the City Commission last week, it’s about government failing miserably at its job – and then not arrogantly apologizing for it.
Here’s how it got started: Another high-priced city consultant (who was illegally procured without competitive bids) and a high-priced planning director (who like most at city hall has never done the job before) drafted a law that outlawed chain-link fences but allowed chicken wire and cattle gates in front yards.
And now, because Fajardo is angry at his inept government and his neighbors for reporting his illegal black chain-link fence to the Big Brother, Fajardo has erected a hodgepodge of every kind of fence imaginable.
It’s an unsightly mess – but it is legal, accordingly to the city’s expensively produced law. (Fajardo, by the way, is a truck driver; he is not the identically named lawyer in town.)
When the issue came to a head before the City Commission last week, an apology by those responsible was clearly in order. But no; this is Albany. Instead, Fajardo was gang-banged by the very culprits at the top of the food chain responsible for the mess: City Manager Alfred Lott, who could barely control his temper enough to make one of his retaliatory cut-downs of Fajardo, and Mayor Willie Adams, who shamefully mocked Fajardo with every breath.
The hot-dog bullying by Lott and Adams was disgusting; what’s worse, though, is that the rest of the City Commission – again, those who passed the law allowing Fajardo’s shenanigans to take place — allowed it.
With all of the challenges facing the state, and with the questionable background of Commissioner Oxendine, and Ray McBerry, you focus on signs?
Howard,
I’ve already detailed NUMEROUS problems with both Ox and McBerry. To me, the fact that their campaigns would violate even simple laws like a local sign ordinance only give further credibility to the allegations of them violating larger and more severe laws at the State and National levels.
yep
Trust me on this Howard. Just look around this site for anything attached to Oxendine or McBerry, and I doubt you’ll feel like we’re “focusing” on signs. This is not only part of the problem with these campaigns, but also an issue with these sign ordinances in general as well.