Wednesday, March 19, 2014

New rule. Signs must be 4 X 5 and be green and white

The headline is a joke, don't get excited. Looks like the Fortuna Sign Ordinance Kerfuffle isn't over, or as clear cut as it appeared. Not as simple as a flat suspension of the rules, but now more convoluted, with revisions, some yet to come.

Dean Glaser and Jaison Chand speak on Fortuna sign ordinance at today's City Council meeting to no avail - John Chiv/Words Worth
...Item VI. Business Number C: Adopt Urgency Ordinance 2014-706, Suspending Section 17.05180 (D) (1) (b) of the Fortuna Municipal Code affecting Political Signs, for a period of six months....

The City Attorney then said in addition to the correction from suspending to amending that Strehl mentioned, the line for a period of six months should be stricken.

The City Attorney said "a candidate has signs up." That candidate is Maggie Fleming but he did not mention her name.

The City Attorney added that this ordinance was temporary, that the Planning Commission had to look into it and send back recommendations, and it was not about size, just no time frame when signs can go up....

Jaison Chand, who is Élan Firpo's campaign manager spoke next. "I am here to get clarification." He said "we only learned of this ordinance change 10 days ago." He said he just learned that is an amendment, not a suspension. And that his biggest concern was not the change but the process. Referring to the unnamed candidate, Chand said, "That candidate knew something we did not know." He said all candidates should have been notified and all 4 DA candidates should have been involved in this decision.
That is a fair criticism. All candidates make their sign purchases based on the existing sign ordinances, which are clearly posted, linked on the County Elections website. Every incorporated town seems to have their own rules and quirks, rather than adopting the county rules. It is true that advance knowledge gives a candidate an advantage

I've been clear that I support the idea of a full suspension. The 30-days-before-an-election clause is clearly outdated, and 60-90 days is preferable in a time when so many vote absentee, meaning they'd vote before signs went up, pretty much. The different sizes in different towns are even more problematic. And, the ordinances are petty and unenforceable anyway.

But this is a mess. A stupid distraction, and a mess.

◼ And, on the topic of signs in general" Campaign Sign Restrictions? - Fred's Humboldt Blog


  1. Thanks for posting this Rose. I heard via third person that other media may do articles.

    At this point, the ordinance was passed. They should issue in writing what they passed and acknowledge at the very least that the process was flawed.

  2. "That is fair criticism" only if the allegation is true. Seems like it just cropped up because the conspiracy theory/conflict of interest allegations didn't hold up.
    I don't know.
    It's just that I see all these things in the blogs that are rehashes of the vague, ominous warnings against one candidate or another and I am wondering whether people are getting wise to the negative campaigning or not.

  3. Anonymous of course unless your candidate is the one doing negative campaigning, then it is okay?

    When the City of Fortuna refuses to talk or be transparent, you can call it allegations, you can try and spin it however you want.

    If this was not holding steam, you would not need to blog about it.

  4. "holding steam". Oh dear, how ominous.
    Not factual, not analytical, but hey, it's Humboddt, throw enough conspiracy theories around, what could it hurt.

    Personally, I decline to cede judgement on any issue to Mr. Chiv or to Rose. Nor do I rely on Mr. Chiv, or Rose, for the facts.

  5. Anonymous but you do feel the need to comment and attack Mr. Chiv and Rose.

    You seem to disappear and reappear on a cyclical basis. Take your meds.

    You have given Mr. Chiv more publicity by your dogged pursuit of commenting and trying to discredit him.

    Even a 2nd grader can guess your issue is personal. Now playing on the computer behind a screen is easy, be a real man and get over it.

    The more you attack Mr. Chiv or Rose, the more I believe they are telling truth. So have you achieved your objective?

  6. It is hardly an attack to say one does not rely on a particular source. It would be an attack to say one does not believe a particular source. Let's illustrate.

    I read lots of newspapers because I do not rely on a single source,


    I never read the Daily Flatulence because it is unreliable.

    Mr Chiv and Rose sometimes have accurate information. But not always. And they both have personal agendas, like we all do, which show up in outright comments, characterizations, and word choices.

  7. But, they do it with their names and not anonymous so even though I can't stand Chiv and his twisted and outdated ideas on feminism, politics, ethics, and certainly can tell when he trolls anonymously, at least they make bold statements under their own names, which is more than I can say for most of us, including myself.

  8. Why thank you Anonymous for a partial compliment. As for telling when I troll under my own name, the same could be applied to you or anyone else.

    There are also people who observe writing styles and then can post anonymously and you think it is someone. With anonymous comments and public wifi, anyone can claim to be me or you.

    There is no one who has never commented anonymously, at least once.

    And you make a good point, I use my name and express opinions that I know will not win me popularity.

    More than anonymous comments, I deplore the anonymous blogs on wordpress because the people writing them know wordpress cannot be traced. To me, if you are going to have a blog where you write about politics, government and public figures and make allegations, then have the balls to use your own name.

    As for my outdated ideas, anonymous say it to my face. Then we can compare who has done what for women, politics and debate ethics and this community.

    There are people like you in this community that want me and others to fit in your box. You cannot tolerate individuality, you give lip service to the ideals you mention above.

  9. It is a fair criticism.

    The IMPRESSION that one candidate was given a 'head start' is a problem.

    I happen to think Losey was right to ask for the suspension, and I don't think it was nefarious. But you can certainly see how it is perceived.

    Then again, I think the ordinance is an unecessary major pain, as so many small town ordinances are.

  10. Rose, as has been posted elsewhere, the ordinance, at least as it applies to political statements or statements of personal belief, is flagrantly unconstitutional. Every town counsel knows this, but the laws are passed as tools of intimidation. And what happens? People of good will end up arguing with each other over the details of a "law" that should not be exist. instead of banding together to attack the law itself. Authority always wins.


Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.