Brian,
Come the November election you will see no political signs in Simi except on private property. The Simi City Council moved last night to have a strict code on signs, just like Moorpark and T.O. I have mixed emotions on the topic. On the one hand temporary signs are out of control in Simi and they do look bad. On the other hand I think we are losing part of what makes Simi, Simi. Unfortunately, to ban the temporary signs put up by the private sector, they also had to ban political signs on public property and charitable signs on public property. Once again because of a few bad apples everyone has to suffer.

This is terrbile news for our local charitable organizations (Rotary, Kiwanis, etc) that depend heavily on street signage to promote their events. Although I didn't witness last night's meeting, I hope that a compromise solution was discussed.

Does anyone know if this new ordinance includes those sign "spinners" that stand on the street corners?

Alan,
We are giving the "spinners' a one year "wait and see"...If it gets out of hand we will spin them off the corners...We, the City Council, are hoping that the local businesses will get involved and allow signage in windows and on private property...there's a lot more to it than that, but that's the nuts and bolts. It will come back to the Council for some modification and clean up...
I, personally am glad to get all that stuff out of our landscaping...including political signs.
Barbra

Barbra,
Like I said, I have mixed emotions on the topic. I personally have always liked the polticial signs everywhere because I found it a display of democracy in action. It also set Simi apart from our neighbors as being a more free wheeling kind of town. Since I was a kid here political signs have been a part of the Simi culture. I think the lack of them will make us just like everybody else. Kinda like when route 40 replaced route 66 and another piece of Americana was cast aside for "progress". On the other hand I don't think it is fair to let businesses from Westlake etc advertise here when our businesses cannot advertise in their cities.

Barbra,
Like I said, I have mixed emotions on the topic. I personally have always liked the polticial signs everywhere because I found it a display of democracy in action. It also set Simi apart from our neighbors as being a more free wheeling kind of town. Since I was a kid here political signs have been a part of the Simi culture. I think the lack of them will make us just like everybody else. Kinda like when route 40 replaced route 66 and another piece of Americana was cast aside for "progress". On the other hand I don't think it is fair to let businesses from Westlake etc advertise here when our businesses cannot advertise in their cities.

Barbra, I can see what the point of the ordinance is but have we researched what other cities do?

A few years back Dr. Keith Richman had an out of area company put up his signs. He attached them in legal, yet annoying ways, all over town.

For example, random poles on private property but close to the sidewalks had signs attached to them above the point that someone without a ladder could get down. The market demands that politicians can speak and advertise their campaigns. I am just wondering if we have thought out how campaigns will get this done.

I am also shocked that a free market loving town like Simi Valley would even for a minute think about touching sign twirlers. These jobs can pay $10 or more an hour. I guess if they had a union, they could fight back like the giant gorillas at the car dealerships...

Barbra,

Thank you for the clarification! There's a part of me, like Arleigh, that has grown used to all the signs, especially the political signs around election time. But there are times each year (like now) that there are just far too many signs out there.

I'm sure the city considered this, but isn't this suppression of political speech a violation of the first ammendment? I'm confident that the city isn't violating our civil rights by approving this ordiance, but I have to ask.

Thanks, Alan

Here is the part they don't want to tell you; Removing political signs helps the incumbents stay right where they are and provides them yet another advantage once elected.

Slowly but surely they whittle down whatever an average Joe can do to run for office or challenge someone without it costin an arm and a leg.

That is NOT democracy in action at all.

"Joe",
You raise an interesting point. Signage is important for any candidate running for local office because local media coverage is virtually non-existent (sorry Star, but its true). I think the proof is in the pudding... look at all the signs out there!

However, why would the incumbent city council members vote to approve an ordinance if it also hurts local businesses and charitable organizations? That seems like a losing proposition to me (angering those groups). City aesthetics take priority in this case.

Besides, motivated candidates will find ways to promote themselves despite the new regulations.

I agree with Alan. This city has way too many candidates. We need to put up more barriers and make it harder and more expensive to run.

That way the only people that run are first vetted by the builders who have researched what is best for us.

It isn't like we had an amendment dealing with freedom of speech ( Which was pretty much dedicated to POLITICAL speech) that would guide us int he right direction.

And get rid of peopel twirling signs.

And Signs of annoying colors.

Barbra,
Why can't the sign ordinance allow 10 different public locations for the display of public signs and just allow one sign per location?

I have set a good example for Simi Valley, I ignore over 750 laws, you guys just ignore the first amendment.

Both Elton Gallegly and Jim Dantona have been endorsed by COPS.

Well, it's a good thing he's getting his signs up and having his staff take down his opponent's. He'll need the name recognition since he doesn't appear in public or debate his opponent.