SignGate: the plot thickens

Anyone can place any sign anywhere. It's impossible for one candidate to control where 1,000s of supporters are placing - and replacing - 1,000s of signs. The logistics are astronomical.
Having been invited to both serve as candidate and campaign manager in various campaigns, among other positions, I have heard well-intentioned members of the community - and even one particularly energetic person from some distance - openly share appalling tales of how they have "sniped" signs, placed signs without permission, and "1 upped" with the zeal of someone recounting a particularly exciting game plan.
To snipe, in this parlance means to go around collecting up the opposition's signs. This is illegal. I have never seen it allowed by any of the many campaigns I have dealt with. However, I have noticed a candidate’s signs “disappear overnight” from whole sectors of the community. My response has been to contact the campaign and let them know their signs have gone missing wholesale. Sniping is a reality of the political realm’s underbelly. It’s deplorable and something I hope we don’t witness this election period.
On one occasion, an out-of-towner arrived at a particular campaign HQ and was boasting of all the signs "sniped" on the way there. When this person's efforts at imposing upon the campaign to become paid staffers was flatly refused - along with a flat refusal that we pay a $1.00 per sign bounty per opponent's sign - we were threatened with the signs in this person's truck being taken to the opposition with tales of, "Look what we just found piled over at your opponent's HQ!"
The candidate did not bow to these tactics and went to place a call to the opposition at once. In my experience, this reaction is typical of candidates. The illegal goings-on are typically the actions of misguided supporters, or opportunists assuming a candidate will pay a price for underhanded methods. Apparently, it works often enough for them to keep reappearing, but I have never witnessed these people being welcomed into San Bernardino political circles.
On another occasion I received calls from voters sharing they voted for me, not because of any issue but, because I did not attach any signs to trees. Had my supporters decided on their own to tack their lawn signs to their trees, I would have lost those votes, through no error of my own.
On another occasion, I received calls from voters sharing that they voted for so & so candidate because they saw more signs than for the opposition on the particular routes they took during the campaign period.
People should understand these 6 points:
1. Individuals do NOT buy political signs for $1.00 a pop, like AHA hearts at Stater Brother's - the campaigns purchase their own signs, or receive them as in-kind donations from supporters. The number of signs you may see is not indicative of any universal truth. They do not reflect the results of any popularity contest. A flood of signs for Candidate A where you frequent may be matched with a similar flood of Candidate B & C signs in areas 2 & 3.
2. Candidates & door-to-door canvassers may ask for permission to place a yard sign when they visit, but anyone passing by at any hour may (illegally) remove the signs, or replace them with the opposition’s signs. Everyone passing your location will then get the wrong impression until you right things. In coveted locations I’ve seen signs appear every morning, be gone by dusk and reappear endlessly, day after day until election. This is NOT typically the work of any candidate as they keep a grueling pace and are hard-pressed for time. See how it works?
3. The teams that use cherry pickers to place signs generally know each other. “1-Upping” is a sort of competition among themselves with the “winner” strapping a sign to the tippy-top of parking lot light poles and similar locations. We have all seen this in San Bernardino over the past 15 years, or so. The inference being, “The higher the sign, the higher the level of support”. This is absurd. The height of a sign only indicates the lengths to which the unskilled labor is willing to go to win a sophomoric “spitting contest” among themselves. It leaves our town’s poles plastered with signs like overlapping scales because they start at the height of the truck’s camper and move up from there, “1 Upping” when “challenged” by the placement of an opponent’s sign above theirs. They don’t just go for the tops the first time around because it’s less expensive and entertaining to do it their way. Besides, except for sign placers that work both sides of an election – and these become readily apparent very soon into any election, seldom do two camps make it to all the same locations.
4. Every candidate should earn or lose your financial support and vote through their own actions, including prior performance, current community involvement, and abilities. Votes should not be relegated to the candidate with the most outlandish snipers, the most daring pole toppers, or with the most signs visible in your small corner of our world.
5. Neither should votes be withheld from candidates choosing to opt out of the resources-depleting sign race by letting their candidates’ statements, podcasts and one-on-one dialogues speak for themselves.
6. Too much emphasis is placed on signs in every political campaign.

What is interesting is how highly-paid Jim Penman devotes time to duplicate the long-standing efforts of modest-wage-earning code compliance officers while currently in office to serve our city’s many and far more serious needs despite our city’s code compliance officers already being long-aware of the particulars of the political sign placement ordinance.
Perhaps if Jim would focus more on the issues of benefit to the greater good and less on these selfishly self-serving issues our city would then become reflective of those efforts rather than the unfortunate reflection he currently casts.
Lastly, Jim has done good for our city over the years, but he is not an immaculate demigod. Someone wrote, “sewage runs downhill”. Someone else wrote, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”. These are not the musing a a content electorate. Whomever you vote for, let it be an informed vote – not one based on hyperbole and innuendo, please. In order for our city to gain the best representation possible, we must become the best-informed electorate possible! Base your vote on verified facts about the candidates, not signs placed – and as quickly removed - by who-knows-who for who-knows-what reasons.
Your Friend & Neighbor Devoted To Local Community & Personal Betterment,
Susana Atanasova

I, too, am so tired of Penman's rants and accusations rather than focusing on the serious issues San Bernardino faces. Enough already. It is clearly time for a change, the City deserves better.

Seems the mayor's son and Mr. Schnetz aren't the only ones who have trouble understanding the sign ordinance, Mr. Van Johnson's signs have been seen posted on SANBAG fencing at the corner of Cajon and University Pkwy/State St as well as atop a previously vandalized city sign post. Wondering why the owner of this blog seems content to only criticize the Milligan camp?
As for Ms. Atanasova, she seems to have more inside information about political signage than your average Bear, maybe she got her political start here. Not only is she knowledgable of such behavior, but she then seeks to excuse it. By the way, no candidate in the 6th Ward has garnered even a 1000 votes in the last 3 elections so it would appear there are probably significantly less people involved in placing signs than she thinks.
Bottom line: Each candidate takes out a city permit to place signs, each candidate signs a document stating they are aware of the city's ordinance governing their placement, each is accountable.
Tabs.

Dear Anonymous "Keeping Tabs",

[Mr. Van Johnson's signs have been seen posted on SANBAG fencing at the corner of Cajon and University Pkwy/State St as well as atop a previously vandalized city sign post.]

Your observation would be most efficiently effective were you to visit San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters site at

http://www.sbcounty.gov/rov/current_elections/110607/candidatelist/CndFilCst.pdf

Click on San Bernardino Sixth Ward incumbent Rikke Van Johnson’s link to be directed to his website with many endorsements from the State of California level on down the list where the “Contact Us” page shares:

You may contact Councilman Rikke Van Johnson through any of the following mediums...

MAIL

Friends Of Rikke Van Johnson

P.O. Box 7753

San Bernardino, CA

92411

PHONE

(909) 725-1053

E-MAIL

thatsus@rikkevanjohnson.net

Just so you know, this time, in the interest of time, I went ahead and gave him the head’s up on the location’s you indicated.

[Wondering why the owner of this blog seems content to only criticize the Milligan camp?]

I guess it’s all in the perspective. I see it as an endorsement of Jim Morris’ attention to detail and dedication to doing all he can to better our city. From my perspective, the source of the problem was the clerical worker who granted permission to re-post signs where they’ve long been welcome without checking to learn her employer doesn’t own it any longer. From my perspective Jim Morris comes out with a testament to his work ethic and attention to details, and humility ~ not all attorney son’s of current mayors would be out there on their limited time off, I think.
[As for Ms. Atanasova, she seems to have more inside information about political signage than your average Bear, maybe she got her political start here.]

I prefaced my post above yours in this thread with a brief synopsis of my experiences in San Bernardino politics as a means of being transparent to any readers who may not know me personally, yet. Here is further detail:

1991-1992 After winning a federal fair housing complaint I submitted on behalf of 108 other San Bernardino households, I was asked to pull papers and did. I was the only candidate to receive endorsements from ALL the media. I received a generous in-kind donation of red & white rectangular signs. I placed all my own signs – and still recall the fright Frank’s Meats on Waterman put into me early one morning, reducing me to tears by gruffly telling me in the pre-dawn darkness that they don’t allow political signs to be posted on their property – or, they didn’t back then. I had already pulled my political sign permit – as I recall it was free, or at minimal cost – and remember it only requiring a description of the geographic area I would be placing signs, or having them placed. I did not learn about the need to have the permission of the property owner until that morning at Frank’s. I still recall that moment in time every time I take the children there for an occasional Icee-style treat.

I then managed the David Lara campaign against Eddie Negrete – who was later to become one of the infamous San Bernardino Four. It was at that campaign HQ that the out-of-towners arrived with the sniped signs, providing me much insight into the repugnant underbelly of campaigns. It was also while at that campaign HQ that the other unsuccessful candidate for the seat called asking for help against the Highland homeowner victor in the race for their runoff with the explanation that he had called the welfare fraud people and made an allegation of welfare fraud against me toward the end of the campaign so that he could canvass the ward with Sun headshots of my other opponent and myself over disparaging captions in an 11th hour attempt to win by smearing with no time left for rebuttal. As he cackled into the receiver, “I know you aren’t on welfare, but they MUST investigate every allegation they receive, so, you can’t sue me because technically, when I passed out those flyers you WERE under investigation for welfare fraud”. Then, he exclaimed, “That’s politics, Baby!” and proceeded to repeat his enthusiastic plea for me to help him in the run off. While I know I was the very best candidate in that election, by far, and that is why I ran. I also knew the Highland resident victor to be an infamous misanthropic misogynistic egotist, but it was better to let him in than Borich, by any means, so, I didn’t help as asked in that runoff.

[ Not only is she knowledgable of such behavior, but she then seeks to excuse it.]

You’ll never read or hear “excusing behavior” from me ~ there are no excuses, only solutions in my world. What my point is in reference to this post is that the office worker is the one that dropped the ball, not the sign crew members.

[By the way, no candidate in the 6th Ward has garnered even a 1000 votes in the last 3 elections so it would appear there are probably significantly less people involved in placing signs than she thinks.]

What I actually wrote was, “Anyone can place any sign anywhere. It's impossible for one candidate to control where 1,000s of supporters are placing - and replacing - 1,000s of signs. The logistics are astronomical.” At the time I wrote it, it seemed obvious that I was referring to the various camps citywide “placing & replacing” signs. Rereading the sentence, it is poorly constructed and I apologize for that. This sentence better conveys my message: With 1,000s of supporters for the various campaigns placing and replacing 1,000s of signs over a wide geographic area in any given election year, it is impossible to expect the candidate, already swamped with a candidate’s daunting schedule, to further be in control of where each sign for the campaign is at every moment.”

Bottom line: Each candidate takes out a city permit to place signs, each candidate signs a document stating they are aware of the city's ordinance governing their placement, each is accountable.
Tabs.

Accountable? Yes. In control? No. It is not possible for any one person to be in control of a vast number of anything spread over a vast distance. Especially when the additional variable of third parties is thrown into the mix. A sign may be ideally situated by the crew, then, along comes a bored and disrespectful person who unthinkingly acts on impulse to yank up the sign, walk a while with it, then, either toss it aside or plant it who-knows-where. The candidate is accountable. But, the candidate is not in control. Someone has to be held responsible, so the political sign ordinance in San Bernardino says that the candidate benefiting from the signs’ placements is ultimately responsible.