8 Responses for "Mulcahy Signs Too Tall?"

1. Robert Ortiz May 14th, 2006 at 10:08 pm 1

   These are political blight. It seems Mr. Mulcahy is the only mayoral candidate which has made such an effort to litter our city in this manner. Shame on him. They are called “LAWN SIGNS” for a reason. They are to be put up by supporters, not a paid company. Shameful.

2. Berry & Teri Kane May 15th, 2006 at 4:37 am 2

   As long as the signs aren’t causing a safety hazzard and the candidates remove all of them in a timely manner after the full election is over, I don’t have a problem with them on lawns or posts up high around the city. Who is to say that a candidate’s supporters aren’t in a business that has the ability to post high signs anyway? The important thing is for our citizens to appreciate that this is an important election!!! — get engaged— learn the issues— make sure that you exercise your right to vote!

3. Glenn W May 15th, 2006 at 6:16 am 3

   Mulcahy’s sign on the carwash at Almaden Expressway and 85 was larger than the legal requirment, it had to come down last week. Speaking of blight, when is there going to be a Mayor that will remove of the all the beer billboards?

4. Rob Ortiz May 17th, 2006 at 11:47 am 4

   When I called his office, his handler said they HIRED a company to put them up and the signs are a strategy since he needed “name recognition”. After a recent forum, an audience member asked about all these signs, and their inappropriate placement. He merely shrugged. I’m told his words were “why are you telling me this?”
   Recently I noticed his signs on the construction site of the new Evergreen Library, which is public property. See http://tinyurl.com/ogsfj These are clearly illegal:
   23.04.730 Prohibited on public property.
   A. No person shall erect or display, or cause or authorize any person to erect or display, any election sign on public property.
   B. The provisions of Sections 23.04.840, 23.04.850, and 23.04.860 shall apply to election signs posted on public property.
   23.04.840 Presumption of responsible party.
   A. Each of the following persons is presumed to be responsible for the posting of an illegal sign, including without limitation an election sign, on public property:
   1. Any person whose name appears on the sign; and
   2. Any person retained to post or distribute such signs.
   B. More than one person may be deemed responsible for the placement of the same sign.
   Does he think he is above the law?

5. Maria May 20th, 2006 at 8:10 am 5

   Despite the fact that I am NOT voting for him, I must admit Mr. Mulcahy is doing an excellent job on his campaign. He hired reputable people who are doing a good job promoting him.

   It’s just too bad his views and mine are simply askew!

6. Where'd they go? May 24th, 2006 at 10:58 am 6

   Hey! We’re not sure about other intersections, but someone cleaned up the signs from the empty lot at Minnesota/Alma (pictured above in its less-pristine state).

   And we haven’t even voted yet! Who gets credit for this good deed? … WGx

7. Rob May 24th, 2006 at 9:43 pm 7

   Me. I made a claim to code enforcement right after the pics.

   They said they will not address anymore since they do not have the time and staff.

8. SJMN Article ... June 1st, 2006 at 11:16 am 8

   In the category of “more-amusing-than-news” the SJ Mercury ran a story this morning commenting on those lawn signs. Among the stories:

   Dozens of Mulcahy signs in Willow Glen were removed by the campaign after the city’s code enforcement department received two complaints that 160 signs were either posted without permission or too high. Freestanding signs in commercial zones cannot be more than 10 feet high, and no more than six feet high in a residential zone. Mulcahy’s campaign spokeswoman said they opted to remove most of them without investigating whether they were actually illegal.