Tauranga City Council is considering changing election rules to put a stop to the large number of roadside election signs.
Mayor Stuart Crosby wants the council to adopt a policy similar to Rotorua's where election signs are not permitted on public property.
Election sign clusters on public property, such as this one at Memorial Park, could be a thing of the past if a policy proposed by Mayor Stuart Crosby gains support among Tauranga City Councillors.
He presented a copy of the Rotorua policy at Tuesday's strategy and policy committee meeting.
Stuart noticed the difference the policy made while visiting Rotorua shortly before the last election.
He came back to Tauranga over the Pyes Pa Road and encountered the plethora of roadside election signs on the Tauranga roadside berms.
'It was such a stark contrast to go to a city that manages it well, and to come back here and see the dog's breakfast at every intersection and the vandalism it attracts,” says Stuart.
'I think it's time for changes – as the city grows it doesn't look good.”
He had enough support to get a staff report on the issue, which is opposed by councillors concerned the measure may affect less well heeled candidates from standing at elections.
Murray Guy is concerned people who do not have established links to the commercial sector would be disadvantaged in finding downtown private property from which to hang electioneering signs.
Terry Molloy supported Stuart, saying the signage used is frequently dishonest, showing councillors 25 years younger than they are.
Rick Curach is worried the change would provide sitting councillors with a huge advantage because they are already featuring in the media.
Catherine Stewart says the election signs are out for only a short time every three years and so it is not a major issue.
Deputy Mayor David Steward says having the signs out does make it obvious that there is an election going on.
The proposed policy is returned to council staff for them to assess whether a bylaw change is required, with associated public consultation, before it is discussed again by council.
The proposal states election signs are not to exceed 2.88sqm and may be erected on private property without payment of any fee to council.
Election signs bigger than 2.88sqm will require a permit and a fee – and are limited to private property.
Election signs would be banned from streets, roadside verges, parks and reserves.
They are limited to six weeks before the election and must be removed by the day before it ends.
19 comments
What will be next ,only sitting Councillors can stand for TCC !!!
Posted on 15-06-2011 07:44 | By POCO O POCO
Have these twits 2 1/2 years out from the next TCC Council elections got nothing better to do with their time than debate Election signs that appear at Election time for a max of 6weeks or so.As for TCC staff formulating a signs by law these would be the last turkeys you would want involved.Looks like this bee in the bonnet has arisen from the Mayor Crosby driving around in a daydream checking out the Rotovegas Streets at election time.Wonderful use of time management skills.
Taxing democracy
Posted on 15-06-2011 08:20 | By ronillian
Once again there's an opportunity to impose fees. This TCC seems particularly good at it. This time it's a fee on democratic expression under the guise of avoiding clutter and preserving visual standards. This is not one rule for all. It merely raisies a financial barrier to democratic expression. Those who have business backing or financial means can pay and advertise with big signs. The fees keep down the "riff raff". Yes this proposal by TCC definitely favours moneyed business candidates and parties. This will serve to inhibit smaller parties and individuals who have sparse financial resources. Democracy can be an unruly, messy (or should it rather be described as "vibrant, stimulating") business for a short time each election but that's what democracy looks like and imposing financial barriers ostensibly to clean up the mess of signs is anti-democratic. Either ALL signs are regulated irrespective of cost or NONE are. Imposing fees merely allows greater unimpeded access to advertising space for those who do have greater resources and restricts it for those who have few financial resources. A poor, thoughtless proposal. A lot more thought needs to go into these proposals before they are "floated". There is more to proposals like this than simply "cleaning up" Tga. The social and political consequences need to be considered (just like with the rejected attempt to introduce charges on the loan of library books)
Not surprisingly, anti democratic
Posted on 15-06-2011 08:28 | By Murray.Guy
The issue is 'how to better manage election signs' in the public space. Election signs are the most cost effective means for a candidate to establish a brand, get there name known. To adopt the Crosby anti public space policy would clearly advantage those with strong links to the commercial sector (Priority One, Chamber of Commerce, etc) which we've seen happen in past elections. One billboard cost will likely cost in excess of $2000. This exceeds the total electioneering budget for the majority of candidates on it's own. I recall Terry Malloy's signs attached to the commercial buildings overlooking the Chadwick / Cameron Rd roundabout. Those candidates with strong links to organisations / churches would clearly have far greater access to private and commercial properties. If the issue is unsightly, vandelised signs, put in place strategies to manage the issue - do not advantage those with 'mates in the right places' and deny the majority of candidates the low cost option of public space signs - it is after all, a public election.
Is the Mayor thinking of the Central Government Elections?
Posted on 15-06-2011 08:35 | By tabatha
I would have to agree with the idea as that edge of road by Memorial Park last time was cluttered and no one could easily read the signs. With Up and coming elections it would be great to see a control on signs. There is a restriction now on signs, when policed, so why not election signs as well. One elected Councillor will not be able to place his jump out signs in silly places as he has done over the years if passed, great idea go for it.
Early Election
Posted on 15-06-2011 09:06 | By Openknee8ted
I am all for Mr Crosby's use of the Rotorua policy in Tauranga and propose an early election to test the policy.
Public office public promotion space.
Posted on 15-06-2011 09:13 | By Owen G.
Public office should also demand fair access to public real estate for promotion at election time however what about some rules on size and spacing and even location. Such rules should be overseen by Internal Affairs or other similar independent body and Police and courts need more power to police graffiti and vandalism of all kinds.
Target all Signs
Posted on 15-06-2011 09:39 | By waiknot
There is no doubt road signs are an eye sore, perhaps the council could have designated locations for election signs? But more to the point how about the continual mess of real estate signs that don't get removed even after a property is sold. there is no need for these on public property.
Why should councillors pollute city?
Posted on 15-06-2011 10:26 | By JSmithington
If ordinary citizens can't just stick a sign up anywhere, why should councillor candiates or parliament candidates be able to? Mind you, the idea that people will vote for someone because they see a sign telling them to, doesn't say much about society's brainpower. Signs should come under the Commerce Act and if candidates say things that are later false, they should be charged for misleading representation.
TRUTHFULNESS WOULD HELP FIRST
Posted on 15-06-2011 12:37 | By DRONE
To much BS on the signs, limiting them on benefits the existing councillors. Clearly soem dont like the threat of competition looming ...
in
Posted on 16-06-2011 00:52 | By Capt_Kaveman
the last election just about all nominees broke the current rules so how is this gonna change anything+ i see a tighten of rules to protect themselves as i see a complete council clean out looming if the peoplr of TGA wake up to these clowns
The best way to manage them is DONT MANAGE THEM
Posted on 16-06-2011 09:39 | By The Tomahawk Kid
SO WHAT about election signs! - They are only there for a short period, and as long as they take them down GET OVER IT PEOPLE! Ther are a hundred more important issues to be tackled than this pettyness about signs - like ALL the HORRENDOUS waste of other peoples money that is spent on council being involved in things they have NO RIGHT to be involved in - all the entertainment, all the trips to Chch, Velodromes, concert venues, art galleries tiddly winks centres etc etc - all things that SHOULD and WOULD be provided FREE OF CHARGE and COMPULSION by the private sector if only council would get out of the way.
Try another angle!
Posted on 16-06-2011 09:40 | By monty111
Why not allow these Councilors to display a sign listing their achievements throughout their past term in office? In which case they would all look the same....BLANK.
Yup test it!
Posted on 16-06-2011 13:38 | By methinks
Openknee8ted hahahaha, I agree whole heartedly!! Alas Mr Crosby wouldn't dare as he knows he will be unemployed come next election!!
2 much time 2 much F*** wittery
Posted on 16-06-2011 18:36 | By Hebegeebies
I know lets have a referendum on signs and a tiddlewinks arena TCC seems to waste dollops of money and time on every other triviality one can think of.Perhaps we should ask every candidate who stood at the last TCC election what their views are, then ridicule them when they tell porkies and point to their track records. LOL
Stuart you are spouting
Posted on 16-06-2011 20:25 | By Nigel Barker
more pollution than the signs would ever create. Is this all you have on your plate? More work for the office dudes to keep them in a job? You (TCC) can not manage the extra foot path space you gave to the establishments along The Strand. How the hell will you manage more? Employee more people?? Have a look some time your self and see how they move out more and more.And to ad insult to injury OUR citizens have to walk in the bloody rain cos the boozers are under the verandas. I am not a religious man - but for Gods sake Stuart get real. Get off your high horse. Get you nose outta 'your' poncy cloud and back into the real world for a change. This would be the only circus world wild that is not open to the public. Allow the signs to be up 14 days before the election and down the day before. Any body breaking the rules get a $1000 fine. K.I.S.S. - wonderful formula try it some time.- Citizens Monitoring Council -
OPPOSITES ?
Posted on 17-06-2011 09:31 | By PLONKER
The more it costs the less any look/think about it, the less it costs the more they look. That means that they are dealing with what they can handle just the little bits. The odd $1000 here and there but when you look at $45 million for the Tiddlewinks Arean it is completely beyond the mental capacity, other than to say "oh isn't it so nice ..." until ratepayers get their bills of course.
Are you there Stuart ??
Posted on 22-06-2011 00:20 | By Nigel Barker
Stuart where are you?? We want an update on this. Many of the peasants - ooops 'Ratepayers' have comments and questions they would appreciate your response to. I understand there may not be a trough here for consultants fee so if need be let me know and I will see if I can arrange something appropriate. Come on matey its not like you to be shy. No make up or photo shoots required Stuart. _ Citizens Monitoring Council -
Update .. 28 June 2011
Posted on 28-06-2011 18:22 | By Murray.Guy
Elected Members by majority (3/8) voted in support of a resolution from Mayor Crosby that election signs not be permitted in public spaces. This will now be consulted on! Against were Crs Curach, Guy and Catherine Stewart, firmly of the opinion that this provided a definite advantage to sitting members.
Well, the leopards changed their spots
Posted on 13-09-2011 22:51 | By Murray.Guy
Its the 13 September and Council voted today by majority to retain the previous policy of allowing election signs in the public space. The only change was a reduction in the period allowed, from 6 weeks to 4 weeks. This will apply to local and central government elections.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.