It Is NOT "Illegal" To Have Political Signs Up

The latest hot-button subtopic of the attempted recall of Janet Joakim is the appearance of her campaign signs. Her political signs have allegedly started appearing around her precinct, and for some unknown reason, that has some COGers jumping mad. They are complaining that it is "illegal" to place political signs any time other than 30 days before an election. They want the town to waste money confiscating these signs.

Here, on this blog, I like to discuss the TRUTH. The TRUTH about political signs is that there is no ordinance in the Town of Barnstable that limits political sign placement to a window 30 days before an election.

The Town Council has considered enacting such an ordinance in the past, but it has NEVER approved one. First Amendment and enforcement issues forced the Council to take an alternative route.

Instead of passing a binding, enforceable LAW, the Council passed a resolve "discouraging" the use of political signs anytime other than 30 days before an election. Here's what they said:

98-135A RESOLVE - CAMPAIGN SIGNS
RESOLVE: That the standard of community character for the Town of Barnstable shall reflect the policy that political signs are discouraged prior to 30 days before an election or referendum.
(Passed by the Barnstable Town Council on 8/20/98 by a 10 yes 0 No vote.)

This is NOT a law. It is NOT an ordinance. It is NOT a court order. It is NOT legally binding in ANY way, shape or form. It is merely the opinion of the 1998 Town Council. This opinion cannot force people to take down political signs, it merely discourages them.

Is it tacky to have political signs out before an election? Maybe. However, look at the BIGGER issue: Which is more important - A person's First Amendment Rights? or You not having to see "tacky" signs?


I don't know why, but this sign issue seems to come up year, after year, after year. Every time, there is someone complaining how the signs are "illegal". They may be "discouraged", but the TRUTH is that they are NOT "illegal".

Thoughts For Today

That was an awesome thunderstorm that just passed through...

Here is a collection of thoughts I have right now as the storm has kept me awake...

• The "recall": This "recall" situation is an example of the many things our current charter gets right. While citizens are given the highly powerful right to recall an elected official, our charter makes sure it can't be done without some real backing. In fact, because it takes 100 signatures to initiate the recall of a town-wide officer and 50 for a precinct officer (Town Councilor), the charter's authors actually made it HARDER to recall a Councilor than a School Committee member... The number of detailed steps that must be followed ensures that a small disputes do not make recalls commonplace. I think the current Charter Commission should take note of how well the charter is working in this fiasco.
• The Water Company: I've been looking at the Council documents (agendas & minutes) related to the purchase of the Hyannis Water Company. As I read over these items, I have learned that the Hyannis Civic Association unanimously approved the purchase, AND that the Town Council voted UNANIMOUSLY to purchase the company.
• Yet, the COGers seem to forget that fact. When they criticize Councilors for endorsing that deal, they only attack the Councilors they hate most. In other words, they criticize everyone except COG's resident Councilor/"White Knight"/Man of the "People" Greg Milne. They conveniently choose NOT to criticize him for voting for the purchase, while suggesting that other Councilors committed heinous crimes by voting for it. Gotta love the double-standard.
• Serving on a town board/committee: I know that not everyone has the time to serve as a volunteer on a town board/committee, but the recent Zoning Board of Appeals mass resignation highlights the importance these boards play. Simply put, these boards are much more influential than we realize. Having enough people willing to serve is a problem, one that you can easily fix.
• You can start by reading about the different boards/committees HERE.
• You can also just download the application form HERE.
• Driving Issues: LIGHTS: Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like a lot of the town's so called "smart" traffic lights just aren't working right. In the past, when there was no traffic in the other direction, I never had to wait more than a few seconds at "smart" lights... Now it seems like I am waiting forever... Am I the only one experiencing this?
• BAD DRIVING: Is it just me, or does it seem like there are more bad drivers out there this Summer? I have had so many near accidents because drivers either cut me off, had no idea how an intersection works (aka doesn't have a 4-way stop), missed Stop signs, ran CLEARLY red lights or simply had no clue how to drive. It's getting scary out there... Which segue ways nicely into my last thought...
• Hearing on Proposed New Traffic Signals on Rt. 28: On Wednesday August 13 @ 7:00 PM, Mass Highway will be conducting a public hearing on proposed intersection & signal upgrades at 3 locations on Rt. 28. They are looking for public input. The locations in question are: Lumbert's Mill Road, South County Road/Main Street (Marstons Mills), and Rt. 149.
• Improvements and a signal are definitely needed at Lumbert's Mill Road (mostly because of the incredibly bad driving exhibited in this town).
• The Rt. 149 intersection has had a poor design for a long time. The fact that the intersection is located in the middle of a hill does not help the traffic problems there. A light there might not be such a bad idea.
• The South County Road/Main Street (Marstons Mills) intersection is the least busy/dangerous of the three. I'm not so sure that a light is needed there, especially if a light is added @ Route 149.
• The biggest issue is the vast number of stops and lights in this stretch of Rt. 28. Lumbert's Mill Road to the new Stop & Shop could have 6 traffic signals. That's 6 signals in less that 3 miles. Traffic on Rt. 28 already crawls along for good portions of this stretch. Adding 3 new lights seems like a lot, when you consider that of the 3 that currently exist, 2 are for the Stop & Shop plaza and one is for the road leading to the Town Dump.

Another Recall Attempt?

COG is reporting that it has completed the first step in its latest attempt to recall Precinct 6 Town Councilor Janet Joakim. It found 50 or so people in Precinct 6 willing to sign anything. The affidavit these people signed allows the recallers to take out a recall petition. Recallers have 10 days from the issuance of the petition to get 10% of registered Precinct 6 voters (around 250) to sign the petition. If they obtain the correct amount of signatures (as certified by the Town Clerk), there will be a recall election scheduled for between 45-60 days after the Clerk certified the petition (unless Councilor Joakim were to resign, which is HIGHLY unlikely). In that election, AT LEAST 20% of Precinct 6 must show up for the results to count AND the majority must vote that she be recalled.

The recall process is not a simple one and is another good example of things that were done correctly in the construction of our current charter. A recall is an important voter tool and a serious matter, and (because of how the charter was written) it cannot be done on a whim.

The ironic matter of this recall is that it will cost between $7,000-$15,000 to perform the recall election (should the recallers succeed in reaching the election). Considering the EXTREMELY poor turnouts at Barnstable elections, it would not be surprising to see LESS that 20% of Precinct 6 show up, which would nullify the results. So, between actually LOSING the election (which is what COGers do best) and not getting enough voters to show up, there is a very good chance that they could be wasting a good amount of OUR money.

Now, I am not an expert on recalls, but the way that I read the charter makes this even more interesting. As I read it, IF a recall election is successful, then ANOTHER separate election must be held 50-120 days later to fill the vacant slot. Which means that a successful recall costs between $14,000-$30,000. YIKES!



Here's a good article from The Barnstable Patriot's archives describing the recall process.

Here's an article from the Patriot in 2007, that details the start of last failed attempt to recall Councilor Joakim and in which Town Clerk Linda Hutchenrider estimates that "a single-precinct recall election would cost between $6,000 and $7,000".

TJ, over at The Barnstable Beat puts the cost of a recall election at up to $15,000.

ZBA Issues Force COGers To Return To Roots

When I wrote my post on the Zoning Board of Appeals and the new Blanchard's proposed on Rt. 28, I had no idea about the tale that was about to drop in front of a couple of spectators that night.

While I have serious concerns about how the ZBA handled the Blanchard's situation, I have serious concerns about all issues concerning the entire board.

There are members (who recently resigned) who had served since 1973.

There were multiple openings, positions left unfilled by the Town Council, and members who had served for over a year waiting for a replacement.

There were qualified Alternate Members who were passed over for entirely new people and there was serious politicking in the election of the two newest ZBA members, whose qualifications are not what I am here to discuss.

There needed to be change and restoration on this board long ago. The Town Council and its Appointments Committee dropped the ball.


Meanwhile, back in Barnstable's Blogosphere, Blanchard's had been a topic of discussion just before the mass resignations. Now, of course, this overturning of the ZBA has become Topic #1. Even the Cape Cod Times actually mentioned it in an article.

Meanwhile, in COGland, the Main COG Blog and Eric Schwaab's blog have returned to their COGer roots.

Schwaab, desperate for another COG friend, called Councilor Hank Farnham a COGer. Schwaab based his invitation on a post on Barnstable Beat that claimed that Farnham, NEVER a member of the COG clan, had called for Council President Janet Joakim's resignation. Schwaab forgot about the names, allegations and comments that COGers have made about Councilor Farnham in the past (especially when he served as Council President). Yet, because Farnham reportedly agreed with the COGers on their one pseudo-issue - Joakim's removal from office - Schwaab was ready to initiate him into the ranks.

Elsewhere, lead COGer Gary Lopez was busy drumming up false accusations against a fellow blogger. This is the ULTIMATE COG trick - when you don't agree with someone or they have proved you wrong - accuse an blogger or commenter of being a Town Councilor. I know, because I have been called so many different names and been accused of being so many different people, that I have lost track. Of course, as of the last couple years, the COGers love to accuse is Janet Joakim.

TJ, over at Barnstable Beat, has now been accused (again) of being Ms. Joakim. Lopez brings no EVIDENCE, only hopeful theories that may even have been altered to prove his point.

This kind of game is COG's favorite thing to do, and I wish the best to the falsely accused. However, they are not done with the game-playing.

Remember the "outrage" near the end of the last election cycle where people reportedly made "nasty" ethnic slurs against the COG candidate in Precinct 3 (Schwaab)? Remember how it was shown that COGers make more slurs and "nasty" attacks than any commenters have EVER been accused of making against COG?

Well, COG is making slurs again. On Sunday, Lopez created a follow-up post to his original post accusing TJ of being Joakim. Here is his title:

"SUSPICIONS CONFIRMED; Janet Joakim is a sicko femme Nazi...."

(My sincere apologies to Councilor Joakim for posting this, but people need to know what is being said.)

I am greatly disturbed by the nature of comments and posts made by COGers. TJ and I are not always on the same page, but we always have stood firm against the COG machine. TJ has been put through a purgatory online recently, and has come out stronger than ever. I know TJ will emerge victorious in this case, too.

As for Councilor Joakim, we rarely agree on larger political issues. Yet, in local politics, there are many instances of common ground. In the blogosphere, there are even more. Councilor Joakim does not deserve the treatment she has received from COG. She has stuck it out through treatment that no one in this town deserves.

The COG group will always resort to their typical tactics. They are:

• False Accusations
• Personal Attacks
• Lies and/or Manipulation of Facts
• Racial, ethnic or other Slurs (aka "cyber hate-crimes")

Let's take a stand as a town and not let them get away with it.

Blanchard's II

Back in March, I wrote a post about the new proposed Blanchard's Liqours at the edge of Precinct 3's borders on Route 28 (near CVS) at the old Knights of Columbus building.

The building was a hot button topic, thanks to discussion started on Janet Joakim's SevenVillages Blog. I chose to write my own post on the topic because of the magnitude of the issue and its extreme proximity to Precinct 3 - It's across the street from this Precinct.

When discussing it, I saw three major issues that needed to be discussed:

1. Since the town hands out liquor licenses, should it relocate the store into an area that already has two stores in a 1.5 mile area?
2. Traffic Impact of the new store
3. Impact of the store on children

After writing the article and reading the comments left by many (including the late Bradley Ouimette, who will be missed), I came up with the following answers:

1. While competition is a GOOD thing, too much competition will in this area will likely result in one of the two current stores being forced to close. Thus, we are left with a trade of abandoned buildings - Knights of Columbus for the closed liquor store(s).
2. The traffic impact of the store would be a MAJOR problem. This stretch of Rt. 28 is dangerous enough, and adding an entrance and exit at this location will only make it worse.
3. Contrary to the belief of some, adding a liquor store to this area is not an issue for the children at the nearby Middle School. There are already liquor stores closer to the High School, the Charter Schools, and Elementary Schools. Plus, it is absurd to think that Blachard's employees would be duped into selling to Middle Schoolers, no matter how good their fake IDs might be...

The biggest issue turned out to be traffic. I feel that allowing the largest liquor store in the Mid-Cape area to be placed at this location without traffic correction is recipe for traffic disaster. If you think that the Lumbert's Mill or 149 intersections with Rt. 28 are bad, this could be even worse. Now, there were possible ways to deal with the traffic issues - back entrance/exit, median strip, etc... - but Blanchard's chose not to include them in their proposal.

The curb cuts they proposed are similar to Olive Garden, the McDonald's on Rt. 132 and both Christmas Tree Shops entrances on Rt. 28 and Rt. 132. In other words, these are the exits/entrances you see people cutting across multiple lanes of traffic to use incorrectly. This is mainly because there are no ways to turn around in Hyannis. Who in their right mind WANTS to go around the Airport Rotary so they can go to McDonald's? Why drive past it, when you can just sit in the Left-hand lane and pray for an opening (a big one) so that you can take the very awkward turn?

Curb cuts do not solve the problem, and often cause even greater problems because people driving by these cuts are not expecting other cars to take illegal left-hand turns.

Anyway, the proposed store required Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) approval because the land is not currently zoned for that use. However, when the proposal came up before the ZBA, the ZBA had no problem approving it even after the Town Manager, Town Council President AND the Town Councilor from that Precinct (Precinct 2) all spoke before the board about the negative impact on traffic that would occur in the area.

The opponents of the project stepped up to the nuclear option, obtaining Cape Cod Commission (CCC) review of the project. Blanchard's had originally escaped review because, at 9,800 square feet, their building fell just 200 square feet short of mandatory CCC review - 10,000 square feet. CCC review could very well kill the project either because of the time & expense or a disapproval. Opponents of the project have also been conducting a mini-"purge" of the ZBA.

More recently, the "Blogger Who Promises To Retire But Never Does" has claimed that the actions of at least the Council President were based because there is a distant family connection between her family and the family that owns one of the two liquor stores nearby the proposed Blanchard's site. Let me be the first to say that I have no idea whether or not this is true, but it would have no impact on my opinion either way.

Cape Cod Package Store (CCPS), located just seconds down Rt. 28, now wants to expand... The COG author asserts that the traffic coming out of this store at its current size is worse than any that would occur at the Blanchard's site. While there are always going to be morons who ignore traffic laws, the COG author leaves out one thing. It is POSSIBLE for people to take a left turn out of this store, BUT it is MORE likely that the will use the BACK entrance which will take them right to the smart light at the intersection that is a few feet away and will allow them to go wherever they want.

If the CCPS wants to expand, they should go through the same arduous process - ZBA and public opinion - that Blanchard's went through before receiving token approval from the ZBA. Let's see some real review of CCPS impact on traffic, and if that means changing the CCPS entrance on Rt. 28 to the Right ONLY In/Out entrance that was proposed for Blanchard's, then let's demand it. This time the Right ONLY In/Out curb cut will actually work - because patrons can exit out the back, right to the light at Phinney's Lane & Rt. 28.

If Blanchard's had included a rear entrance (like CCPS has) that would have placed patrons on Wequaquet Ave./Old Strawberry Hill Rd. in addition to their Right ONLY In/Out entrance on Rt. 28, then they probably would have eliminated traffic concerns and approval would never have been an issue. Patrons could take their lefts at the light. (Though, this plan might have required future alterations to the intersection - additional left turn lanes and signals - depending on how much traffic there really was.) Yet, even this plan caused unrest among Blanchard's prospective neighbors.

In the end, the ZBA ignored the pleas of both citizens and officials - that is why Blanchard's faces CCC review and that is why the ZBA is being shaken up. For once, the community actually voiced their opinion on a zoning issue, but the ZBA ignored them. Hopefully, the new members of the ZBA will listen as we begin some discussion on the proposed expansion of CCPS.