For the first time ever, the Town of Atherton is worried about the distance of a sign to a house. It’s not because the town employees and Rodericks have a vested interest in the parcel tax and don’t want opposing signs up. It’s just a coincidence and paranoia!

Are these same people worried about the distance of Elizabeth Lewis’ house to the street and her neighbors’ homes? What’s going to be done about those violations and the permanent blight it has caused for those neighboring homeowners?

That sure seems like a more serious issue than a temporary sign.

They definitely can continue to count on the Almanac to provide the cover they need to run roughshod over people, condone police misconduct, etc.

By the way, whatever happened to the Atherton cop who roughed up a STANFORD PROFESSOR? Guarducci is his name. Hope you don’t think I’m paranoid for wondering why no one seems to want to talk about that when the police tax is up for renewal.

Please note, the story and the email sent to both campaigns, and the applicable law, says the town is worried about how close a sign is to the paved edge of the street. The distance to a home is not a concern.

The Almanac has been in touch with the Atherton Police Department about the complaint made against several police officers by Menlo Park resident Dick Winnant in March. We have been told the report is completed, but that they want to present it to Mr. Winnant before making it public.

Hey Right, You're wrong.

With all of the ongoing construction around town, residents are periodically reminded about the ordinance as some neighbors suffering from the construction traffic try to minimize destruction and inconvenience.

Thanks for clearing that up, Atherton American. Now that you have reminded me, it is true that there have never been elections before with construction going on around town. That’s why just on this election, signs need to come down. The construction we are having now never happened before. Makes perfect sense.

No good deed goes unpunished. Town officials send an advance notice to both pro and con parcel tax campaigns reminding them of what the law is and telling them to make sure their signage complies or they may be subject to removal. Saying that again - don’t break the law or there may be consequences. We will remove your sign but you can come pick it up. What other town extends that courtesy?

No complaints from the pro side but the anti side calls harassment to the press.

I may not be in favor of the parcel tax but I certainly don’t like the dirty politics of the anti tax crowd. Be adults for goodness sake. Abide by the law. Stop mud slinging and pettty politics. There’s enough of that at the federal level.

Sometime the right-of-way is not at the "curb" since there are no curbs in Atherton. How does one know where that line exists? And also, signs are already out there - just passed two at the intersection of Alameda de las Pulgas and Atherton (both pro and con) -- clearly within 6 feet of the intersection.

I am concerned that the Town is using its discretionary powers in an election that has significant financial implications for the Town while the Town has not used these discretionary powers in other elections.

What about the No on F sign that's at Selby and Stockbridge that isn't even in front of an Atherton house? I don't think the city can take that one.

Still, I didn't realize people living in the County got a vote in the Atherton election. Why would they even have it in front of their house?

It seems to me the No on F group is sprinkling signs around without regard to whether the resident is intends to vote no. Sure makes it appears that there are many against the parcel tax ...

it turns out that the then Town Attorney, Mark Hynes, on Dec. 14, 2000 issued a formal opinion that the Town that basically says the Town may NOT remove political signs except where the signs present a demonstrable hazard AND the property owner has been given written notice:

Web Link

The memo also explicitly states that the Town CANNOT prohibit political signs on Town property.

The 2000 memo Mr. Carpenter refers to was about Atherton's previous sign law, which was replaced by the town in December 2014.
Web Link
If you're interested in more background, here is a link to the Oct. 2014 staff report about why the ordinance needed revisions.
Web Link
Here is an excerpt from the 2014 report about the need to change the previous sign regulations: "The Town’s existing sign ordinance is not currently reflective of state and federal laws regarding the regulation of signs at the local level. In response to queries regarding enforcement of the ordinance, inconsistencies in its applicability, and incongruities with state and federal laws, staff recommends deletion of the current Chapter and replacement with a new Chapter establishing a new sign ordinance for the Town."

Well well, the truth finally has come out thanks to Mother Jones. The parcel tax supporters/Town feel like the No on F group cannot possibly have many supporters. Their signs must be fake.

Barbara, your comment above is not journalism. It’s taking sides. The 2000 memo was about how ANY Atherton ordinance or practice regarding political signs must comport with first amendment rights and various binding court decisions that so interpret they can only be removed due to demonstrably exigent circumstances. The 2014 update to Atherton’s ordinance has no effect on that case law. State and Federal law trump Atherton’s statute.

More law. California mandates a police agency must respond to a complaint within a certain amount of time. The Winnant situation is well beyond that period of time. I therefore tend to agree with Right that the APD is intentionally delaying due to PR issues, especially with this election.

It really seems you take at face value whatever someone in government tells you. I would say that’s where journalism begins, not ends.

" The 2014 update to Atherton’s ordinance has no effect on that case law. State and Federal law trump Atherton’s statute. "

Perfectly stated. Anyone harmed by the Town's focussed enforcement need only seek an injunction with Mr. Hynes memo as exhibit 1.

And the specific attention being given to political signs now when the outcome of the election will have a direct impact on the Town's finances is unwise. If Measure F passes narrowly the Town's sign action will raise questions about the legitimacy of the election.

From the Hynes memo:

"Any ordinance which regulates or infringes upon First Amendment rights will be strictly scrutinized by a court if it is challenged. If an ordinance is challenged for suppressing the content of speech, only a compelling interest of the regulating entity will justify the suppression."

This legal opinion was not specific to the then existing sign ordinance and applies equally to the current ordinance.

A court would surely note that the current sign ordinance exempts such signs as :
'Holiday and cultural observance decorations displayed in season, including inflatable objects, on private residential property which are on display for not more than forty-five calendar days per year (cumulative, per dwelling unit) and which do not include commercial messages."

A court would probably find it strange that the Town gives more important to Halloween than it does to political speech.

The Town does not remove political signage or displays from private property.

Relevant portions of the Town’s ordinance addresses signage placed within the Town right of way and establishes reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on placement of signage in that Town right of way.

The Town ordinance adopted in 2014 is compliant with all applicable State and Federal law.

Regulation of signage in the public right of way is not uncommon. Here is a link to a far larger community and its regulations as of 2016, to include a notification from the State provided to campaigns.

Web Link

During a recent field inspection earlier this week, signage from both campaigns were removed. These have since been retrieved by the campaign organizers. A total of 4 signs were removed. A field inspection on Friday along the Town’s main roadways found all signage to be compliant and no signs were removed. I would be happy to discuss the Town’s regulations in detail in person, via email or by phone. I can be reached at (650) 753-0504 or grodericks@ci.atherton.ca.us.

Correction - (650) 752-0504 (hard to type on a phone)

"During a recent field inspection earlier this week, signage from both campaigns were removed. "

Such a field inspection which focussed only on political signs is de facto proof of a free speech violation.

What about the portable toilets, rocks and logs that are in the right of way all over Town?

What about all the Halloween decorations that are in the public right of way all over Town?

Why were they not removed in this field inspection?

George's posting is exhibit 2 in the case against the Town's attempt to manipulate the current parcel tax election.

Public Works and Code Enforcement remove signs from the right of way every week. Field inspections are not directed at political signage. Staff removes for sale signage, garage sale signage, real estate signage and others. This forum is solely discussing the political signage issue so that’s where I directed my comments (and I’m typing on my phone so I limited my comments).

Code Enforcement has numerous active cases for rocks and other material in the right of way. These are harder to deal with as often they are integrated into landscaping and we connect with the property owner. I have not seen Halloween decorations within the first 6 six feet of right of way. The ones I have seen are back 6 feet or attached to private fences and gates. If you’d like to advise where that is I will have code Enforcement check it out.

Portable toilets are typically coordinated under a building permit. There are reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. What is the location and we will inspect its placement?

"What is the location and we will inspect its placement?"

On OakGrove just before GreenOaks there is a portable toilet actually touching the roadway.

Thanks - I will pass it along to Code Enforcement.