signs,signs everywheres a sign blocking out the scenery breaking my mind

Do you hate this stupid assumption that the one with the most signs will actually win.We need a few guidelines.I think 8 4x8 signs are enough.8 4x4 and that's ALL!!!What do you think?

The "vote for me" signs are an eyesore and nothing but litter.

I agree with you both! I think if signs are going to be permitted, there should be something implemented like if your area to represent is say, 100 square mile, then you get 20 signs to put out.

This would cut down on all the signs everywhere and put everyone on a level playing field as far as those with tons of money not being able to just overwhelm someone else who may not have as much.

I don't know if Lee Miller is posting his own signs, but his signs have been placed on unwanted property. Don't these candidates need approval from the property owner before they put signs on their property or the borders (state or city property)?

If it is on unwanted property, the person who owns the property can remove them.
If it is on the public road right away, Anybody can remove them.

sign permission wrote:

I don't know if Lee Miller is posting his own signs, but his signs have been placed on unwanted property. Don't these candidates need approval from the property owner before they put signs on their property or the borders (state or city property)?

Wouldn't you think an incumbent's sign SHOULD say re-elect????Cheap b@$turd.

observer wrote:

<quoted text>
Wouldn't you think an incumbent's sign SHOULD say re-elect????Cheap b@$turd.

I noticed that as well. It makes me wonder whether it is a matter of frugality, or someone wanting the uninformed to NOT realize that the candidate is responsible for current debacles.

observer wrote:

<quoted text>
Wouldn't you think an incumbent's sign SHOULD say re-elect????Cheap b@$turd.

I think it is smart that an incumbent is reusing their old signs. It doesn't make them cheap. With the economy like it is, it just shows that the incumbent is not one to waste money! In addition, signs normally do not change a voters mind, so why waste money on them...

Money wrote:

<quoted text>
I think it is smart that an incumbent is reusing their old signs. It doesn't make them cheap. With the economy like it is, it just shows that the incumbent is not one to waste money! In addition, signs normally do not change a voters mind, so why waste money on them...

Naw,he's a cheap SOB

There should be an ordinance , one month before election on placing signs

Money wrote:

<quoted text>
I think it is smart that an incumbent is reusing their old signs. It doesn't make them cheap. With the economy like it is, it just shows that the incumbent is not one to waste money! In addition, signs normally do not change a voters mind, so why waste money on th em...

THANKS LEE MILLER

Has anyone voted on someone because they saw their sign? Really??

signs dont mean a thing to me i vote the ones out who is in office except glenn hess.

signs dont mean a thing to me i vote the ones out who is in office except glenn hess.

This piece of trash is the one violating the sign law posting the most, you must be an employee of this jerk.

Or have your special director out puttin them out for you.

signs are important to get someones name out

It is illeagle to sell signs. I have noticed some of Benton's signs disappearing is someone running scared?

i have noticed some of glidewell's signs disappearing as well,

wake UP wrote:

signs are important to get someones name out

Perhaps. When there are a dozen of them all in the same spot its pointless. I have never voted for someone because I saw their sign.

I dont agree with putting more then one in one location but you see a sign you see that name. Im not saying you vote cause you saw that sign but it lets you know who is in what race then you go from there.