DA OKs ripping signs from utility poles

A week ago I wrote Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk an open letter asking whether I would be in violation of the law for my dogged, civic-minded tearing down of commercial signs ("1-800-Got Junk," "College House Painters," "Jobdango" etc.) posted on utility poles in the public right of way. An Oregonian story had reported that Schrunk's office questioned the constitutionality of a city ordinance prohibiting posting such signs in the public right of way.

Today I got a interesting response from Schrunk. Bottom line: I'm free to rip these little blighters off the poles. Unanswered: What exactly are the constitutional concerns that the DA's office and the Portland City Commissioners have?

Here's what Schrunk wrote:

Dear Mr. Seifert:

I have reviewed the questions you posed in your email regarding
signs on utility poles. I understand and appreciate your concern for the
blight caused by numerous signs being posted or attached to utility
poles in your neighborhood and others. Pursuant to Oregon law, my office
has been given responsibility for prosecution of Portland City criminal
ordinances. However, in this case, the Portland City Council has
expressed concerns about this ordinance and a desire to rework its
applicability from a constitutional perspective. The ordinance you cite
in your email, Advertising on the Streets, was enacted by the Portland
City Council many years ago. However, in 2002 both City Council and the
Portland City Attorney's office expressed concern about the
constitutionality of the language in this ordinance. At that time, the
City Council stated that they would be discussing this "controversial
item" with the intent to propose new language that they believed was
constitutionally supportable. However, as of this date, that apparently
has never been done.

In regards to your specific questions regarding whether you are
guilty of theft if you remove signs placed on utility poles, which are
indeed private property. My office would not prosecute a person for
taking signs off a utility pole that were not placed there by the owner
of the pole or placed there with the owner's permission. It would be
necessary for any person intending to remove anything from the private
property of another to ensure that the removal was with the permission
of the property owner.

The same reasoning applies to removing graffiti found on public
property. My office would not prosecute a person for removing graffiti
that was placed on public property as long as the owner of the public
property-i.e. the City, the County, or other governmental agencies-had
not granted permission for that graffiti to be placed on that public
property. Again, however, given some of the precarious places that
graffiti can be found, a person seeking to remove graffiti from the
property of another should first check with the property owner for
permission.

Again, I do appreciate your concern for what you describe as
"massive signage blight," and I hope this response addresses your
questions.


Very truly yours,

Michael D. Schrunk

Letter to the District Attorney

Following up on yesterday's post regarding the constitutionality of "illegal" signs on utility poles, I sent the following e-mail to DA Michael Schrunk's office today.

One question is whether it is worth the taxpayers' money for Schunk's office to respond. We'll find out. My money is on no response. How about yours?

Here's what I wrote:

I read the C1 Metro story in yesterday's Oregonian with particular interest as I regularly remove signs placed illegally on utility poles in our neighborhood of Hillsdale. In my car, I carry a long pipe, which I use to swat down signs placed beyond normal reach. As a courtesy, I often phone the numbers on the signs to inform sign owners that their signs are illegally placed on the poles and that I have taken them down. I also ask that they cease putting them up in our neighborhood, adding pointedly that because of the ordinance forbidding the signs, there could be a penalty associated with the postings. In other words, I may report repeated postings to the authorities. Then appealing to sweet reason and civic pride, I further note that if every business posted signs on our utility poles, the entire city would be a blighted maze of signs. Hence the anti-posting ordinance. I "personalize" the issue with this question: How would you like every pole in your neighborhood were covered with signs? Now, if I read The Oregonian story correctly, your office questions the constitutionality of the ordinance and has decided not to prosecute violations of it. Obviously that undercuts my argument to violators. Indeed, it may serve as an open invitation for hundreds, if not thousands, of businesses, to post all shapes and sizes of signs on Portland's utility poles, which, if I am correct, are actually owned by the utilities (Does that make them private property?) So here are some questions? If I remove these signs, which you seem to deem constitutionally legal, am I guilty of theft? Or are they considered "abandoned property" like litter in the public right-of-way, which I can legally remove? Why did the City Attorney not alert the council to the constitutionality issue when the council passed this measure? Certainly someone must have raised "First Amendment" questions. Is graffiti written on public property also protected? Are those of us who remove it guilty of some crime? If graffiti were written on a placard and placed in the public right of way, would it be legal? Would obscenity make a difference? Portland may be weird, but is it THAT weird? And what about the small stand-alone signs on wire frames which are often put up at important intersections by 1-800-Got-Junk and JobDango? (I remove those as well, using the arguments mentioned above.) If the ordinance is indeed unconstitutional, what is to prohibit the kind of massive signage blight I am describing? I do not want to get into the content of the (anti-police) message in question in the Oregonian story, but it is easy to see that a back and forth between contentious groups would add immensely to the signage problem. Finally, and as an aside, I voluntarily remove these signs to protect the neighborhood from blight. I have often thought that the city should fine and bill the owners of the signs for removal with the money being contributed to the neighborhood association affected and whose volunteers have removed the signs. I look forward to a response from your office regarding this matter.

Two items, late in the day

It's late. I need to think more before writing about the district attorney's refusal to prosecute a case in which signs were illegally posted on utility poles. See this story in today's Oregonian. The ordinance prohibiting such postings may be unconstitutional, saith the DA.

I tear down these signs all the time. Ripped down about eight (an employment agency pitch) this very day and called the number on the sign to tell one "Alice," who answered, that I had done so. My defense is the self-same ordinance.

And the DA won't prosecute? Am I now the one who is guilty for removing Alice's signs?

I have consulted one of the best and most convenient legal minds I know about this matter and will report my findings tomorrow. I may also put in a call to Michael Schrunk, the DA himself. I may want to post my own signs on the utility poles in front of his house. "Prosecute this! Mr. Schrunk."

This could get weird. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, there are two items late in this bizarre weather day to be considered. Neither has to do with the weather, even with thunder and lightning outside my window.

The first is this statement from "Time and the Art of Living" by Robert Grudin. That's a book I've referred to before and recommend highly for bursts of mind stretching.

The statement: "The mind is as limited by what it rebels against as it is by what it accepts."

Item two is how Michael Thomas Ponder figured out where I was last week. Here, in his own words, is his explanation.

"It was an open book test right? Using the power of Google I searched
for Blue Horse using island & WA as key words since it looked like a San
Juan island setting. Restaurant & lodging listings popped up and once I
saw Ganges Rd, I figured I was on the right path with your Indian
clue...."

To see the clues, visit the original post. The answer, lest you have forgotten or didn't care or weren't here for the explication, was Salt Spring Island and its Ganges Harbor in British Columbia.