Thanks to Mike Judge for sending in some pictures of his campaign signs around town.
Most of the signs in Simi Valley are from the two incumbents running, which is odd being that they have both said they are against campaign signs.
Here is a recent quote from Steve Sojka:
"I'd be more than happy to do away with them altogether," Sojka said.
Steve, if you really want to do away from them, why do you have what appears to be the most signs in town? If they are an effective way to communicate, why would you ban them?
Barbra Williamson also has expressed dismay about campaign signs. Barbra, if they are such a nuisance, why put them up in an election where none of the challengers are spending a serious amount of money? If they are effective, why would you want to further limit them? If I have your view about this wrong, please correct me.
Click here to see a recent story from Star Reporter Anna Bakalis on this issue.
/strong
Most campaign signs are of incumbents
Unfair advantage claimed by some in 9-candidate Simi Valley Council raceBy Anna Bakalis
Saturday, October 25, 2008If campaign signs alone were an indicator of who is running for Simi Valley City Council, there would be almost no competition for the three incumbents on Nov. 4.
There are nine candidates in the running, but it's hard to tell by driving through the city.
While there are four newcomers vying for the two council seats -- Richard Paul Carter, Daniel R. Jenkins, Michael Thomas Judge and Gerald Smith -- almost all campaign signs ask residents to re-elect longtime council members Barbra Williamson and Steve Sojka.
Mayor Paul Miller's two-year seat is also up. He has posted signs, but not as many as his fellow council members. The two candidates hoping to unseat Miller -- Bruce Witkin and Ed Lang -- aren't getting their names out much, either.
There are no visible signs by challengers posted in busy intersections or business areas. In fact, only one challenger has received any campaign contributions, and none has posted any expenses, according to the latest candidate campaign disclosure statements, submitted on Oct. 15.
Some non-incumbents say the city's sign ordinance is to blame for so few campaign signs. It doesn't allow any signs in the public right of way. The only way someone can post signs -- either political or commercial -- is by getting permission from the private property owner. The city allows campaign signs to be posted for 120 days.
Non-incumbents say the incumbents have an unfair advantage because they have been around longer and can ask commercial property owners to put signs up.
Others admit they aren't putting up signs, in part, because they think getting elected is a long shot.
More expensive races
The three incumbents rebut that they are well-known in the community and have built up the political capital needed to approach property owners. And with a total of 40 years of City Council experience among them, they are also running more expensive campaigns than the newcomers.
Carter, 47, is a small-business consultant who said he has chosen not to put signs up. In part he doesn't like the look of the signs and would like to "maintain the peaceful quality" of the city.
If he had the money, he said, he would put up about 20 or 30 signs, "but nothing I do can compare with the sheer number of signs out there now," Carter said.
While he wants to win on Nov. 4, and has pounded the pavement and knocked on many doors, Carter also admits he is still an unknown to most people.
"I just didn't have the money to spend to get out there this time," he said.
Judge, 45, a police officer with the Los Angeles Police Department, has campaign signs in front of Greta's Firearms Sales and Training shop -- one of his platforms is to build a shooting range. But he has neither contributions nor any expenses listed on the Oct. 15 filing.
None of the challengers belongs to the Chamber of Commerce or service organizations such as the Rotary Club -- often a steppingstone into local politics.
Miller said when he first came to the council in 1994, he had been involved with local service organizations that helped raise his profile in the community.
"People's names on a sign won't matter much if someone doesn't have a record of service in the community," Miller said.
But Jenkins, a builder and entrepreneur, said he thinks the City Council members have an unfair advantage because property owners will be more inclined to say yes to an incumbent than a newcomer.
"They're taking politics out of the public square," Jenkins said. "Where did they put it? Into the hands of property owners."
No money spent on signs
Even though Jenkins has looked at the county assessor's records, he's had a hard time tracking down property owners to ask to place his sign.
Jenkins said he hasn't spent any money on signs. Nor has he received any contributions, according to campaign finance reports.
"I'm sure a lot of people may not even know there are even challengers," he said.
Sojka is seeking his fourth term and has received about $27,280. Of that, he has spent just under $18,000, according to Oct. 15 finance reports.
Sojka, a small-business owner, said signs are the cheapest and easiest way to get all candidates' names out there. While he knows it's part of the political process, he thinks signs are somewhat of an eyesore.
"I'd be more than happy to do away with them altogether," Sojka said.
He said he's put up about 300 signs in front yards and about 100 or so in front of businesses.
Fifth term is sought
Williamson, the longest-serving member of the council, is seeking her fifth term. She has received about $37,000 in campaign contributions and spent just under $12,000, according to her finance report.
She takes offense to the idea that incumbents have an unfair advantage.
Having been involved with the community for as many years as she has, Williamson said, "I can go to the private property owner, and 99.9 percent of the time, they say yes."
Miller has received about $16,300 in contributions so far, according to the Oct. 15 filing. With about $8,000 as a starting balance from previous campaigns, Miller has spent about $22,500 -- some of it on mailers, as well as online and newspaper ads.
Of all six newcomers, mayoral candidate Bruce Witkin is the only one who has received any campaign contributions, according to the Oct. 15 filing.
Witkin, 46, has spent just about all of the $600 he's received toward purchasing campaign signs.
Incumbents earned the right'
Witkin said he's put about 50 signs around town -- mostly in front yards. He said he would love to win this time around but acknowledges he might be too unknown to the community. He understands why incumbent signs dominate the city.
"I do believe it's easier for them, but they've earned the right," Witkin said.
He said if he'd been on the council for as many years, he suspects he'd be afforded the same advantages.
Lang, 55, is also running against Miller, but no campaign signs for him have been seen in town, and his finance filings show no activity.
To view all nine candidates' financial statements, visit the city's Web site: simivalley.org.
Sorry, I do not agree with the ban on signage in Simi - it is a clear advantage for the incumbents. Gallegly is one of the worst offenders.
Katie, can you clarify your position? Do you think all signs should be banned, or that there should be an equal number of signs per candidate? I chose not to put up signs for my campaign because I thought it looked bad around town, but as a first time candidate it may have been a mistake because of my lack of name recognition. I would appreciate your feedback because I'm already working on my strategy for next time.
Thanks,
Katie, there are no offenders because the signs are posted according to the sign ordinance.
Brian, so long as signs aren't illegal, why wouldn't a candidate, even one who doesn't care for how signs look around town, want to take advantage and post them regardless? I believe the sign argument is a non issue.
If you want to tackle a real issue, let's talk about the people who are taking the signs DOWN that I've spent hours putting up. I have no problem walking into a store front or gas station and asking permission to post a sign. However, they disappear sometimes less than 24 hours after I put them up. THAT's discouraging.
Hi Brian,If I had my way there would be no signs period. I put up signs because I believe it is just one part of my running a serious campaign.
I believe the reason why the challengers haven't put up signs is because they haven't been able to raise the $$$ to buy any. Surely they have friends that will donate $50 or so. Frankly, I am tried of them crying because we have signs and they don't and that the sign ordinance is only fair to the incumbence... Get over it.
Oh and by the way, Mr. Witkins and Mr Judge's signs are, according to the sign ordinance, illegal. Which begs the question...if they can't get the law right on where they place their signs what can we expect of them as council members or mayor?
When I got involved with the city,(1971) I started at the bottom. These guys want to start at the top. Go figure.
The sign ordinance favors incumbents because no business owner wants to show he or she is partial to a challenger because it isn't good business - and at least one of the incumbents throws major canniption fits. I can imagine worse happens.
It was deliberate - there should be no signs allowed or everyone's signs. The First Amendent rights are being trambled.
Furthermore, the Chamber sponsored street fair days will forever be engrained in my memory. There were Elton signs EVERYWHERE!!!! I guess all rules are relaxed on that day.
Barbra, how are Bruce Witkin's signs illegal? I designed the artwork for them which is why I'm curious.
Katie, first amendment rights aren't being trampled, that's an outrageous claim! I can see how the ordinance makes it challenging for newcomers, but trampling first amendment rights? No way!
I'm a business owner and I paid $500 to print an ad supporting Bruce Witkin for Mayor. At one time, I was very involved in the Chamber, I chaired the Street Fair one year, and I know my position isn't favorable among my peers. That hasn't stopped me from supporting Bruce at all.
The ordinance regulates where campaigners can put signs. Period.
Isn't the First Amendment Freedom of Speech? If so, one should be able to put signs up as long as they don't endanger anyone. Thus, their rights are trampled because of the ordinance. It is a slippery slope and I for one don't agree with many of the ordinances Simi has passed - but I live in Camarillo so don't have to worry about it.
Mike,
I think it is a wise choice to put signs up. It is an effective way or raising the name ID of a candidate. If a voter doesn't know a candidate's name, they aren't likely to vote for them. This is especially true of challengers to incumbents.
Barbra,
I agree that most of the other candidates don't have signs because they haven't been able to draw wide support for their campaigns to pay for them.
But my question is about you using them.
If they are effective, why limit other people and yourself from using them?
If you really want to get rid of signs altogether, why not show leadership and start with your own campaign? It isn't like there is a serious challenge for your seat.
If you want to keep using them because they are effective, I would argue that you should stop saying you want to get rid of them.
Brain,
I didn't say they weren't effective...I think they are clutter and leave unwanted litter in our landscaping once the campaign is over. 9 times out of 10 the winners of the campaign go out and pick up their signs, the losers, however, leave them until they disintagrate or the winds sends them to another part of the landscaping.
Katie: Were you talking about me? Since I am the most vocal incumbent I am assuming you are...sorry I come off that way if you are talking about me, but I've never been one to avoid saying what I believe.
Mike: It is not the content of the sign, it is where they are placed. Also, if you paid $500 and your candidate knew you were making the signs, that constitutes a legal expenditure and your candidate must report it.
I like Mr.Witkin and have met him several times
I just don't think he is qualified for being Mayor.
No, I wasn't talking about any of the City Council people.
"Sign Sign everywhere a sign
Blocking out the scenery breaking my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign "
-- "Signs"
5 Man Electrical Band
1970
Monday, I saw a "Yes on 8" sign on city property at the entrance to the Simi Valley Senior Center. (It was gone yesterday.)
Sorry Brian, didn't mean to call you a Brain, however the spelling is quite close....
Barbra, I designed the artwork for Mr. Witkin's signs at no cost. The ad I published for $500 I did without his knowing which is why it's not recorded as an expense. To avoid confusion, I published my business name in the footer as the purchaser of the ad (e.g. "paid for by...").
On another note, I've published your video on my website in regards to campaign signs.
Barbra,
Thanks for the compliment.
Mike:
You can't do it at NO Cost. Other wise I would have David Spaerstein send out all my mailers at No cost. If Mr. Witkins new of the design job, and I am sure he did, he has to report it.