Republican eyesore

By John McDaid | Monday, 6 October 2008
Robicheau truck
"Robicheau" truck on Park Ave.

Supporters of Republican Town Council candidate Joe Robicheau (editor of the PCC Newsletter) parked a truck on Park Ave and Gormley this morning with a big sign for their candidate, and that makes me really sad.

My sense is that here in Portsmouth we have, irrespective of party, generally opposed the visual pollution of lawn signs and other eyesores for local races. Even the non-partisan Preserve Portsmouth folks took heat over their signage, and they had a much bigger name-recognition hill to climb. So there's really no excuse for the Democrats or Republicans. Do they have the free speech right to do this? Absolutely. But we have the free speech right to complain right back. Nobody wants an arms race of lawn-sign proliferation that makes Portsmouth an ugly place.

I know that Republican Town Committee chair Frank Oliveira cares deeply about our town, and I call on him to ask his Party's endorsed candidates to respect our traditions.

Tags: 
Localblogging, 02871

Comments

ELCAPITAN

Tue, 10/07/2008 - 9:11am

It looks like a pizza delivery car to me.

I am kind of new to Portsmouth, but I have heard that there is some unwritten "gentlemens' " rule (I only say "gentlemens' " because it must have been conceived before women were allowed in the back rooms of politics) that within a month of an election candidate signs can go out on lawns and be removed shortly after the election. It seems like a civil way for people to show individual support of candidates.

Do any of you remember when we used to have cars with candidate posters pasted on the side driving down the street with big speakers blasting things about candidates?

We need to come back to "civility' in politics. Whoever is elected, I am not going to "leave the country" or anything like that. I will respectfully call the one who is elected "President". Can we focus on how what we do and say affects our neighbors? Can't we all get along?

John McDaid

Tue, 10/07/2008 - 11:54am

Hi, ELCAPITAN...
Like many unwritten rules, this one is difficult to track down. The version I have heard from several sources was a gentleperson's agreement, usually honored, to not employ signage for local races. If you have heard differently, I'm willing to be corrected.

I agree completely with your call for civility in politics. If Joe Robicheau did not personally hand me a palm card, at my door, that accuses the "Council majority" of "reckless performance" I would be much more inclined to cut him some slack.

In my opinion, the only winning strategy in a Multi-round Prisoner's Dilemma is benevolent tit-for-tat. My default mode is cooperation, but I am not willing to be silent in the face of attacks. Civility cuts both ways.

Best,
-j

interested observer

Thu, 10/09/2008 - 7:48am

While I am against signs of any kind state, local or national, a person does however have their first amendment rights. That being said, I find it more intrusive to have to be harassed by a line of Democratic Candidates while I go to the dump. Although it has been investigated and found to be perfectly legal, I don't think any candidate or political group should be handing out propaganda on town property. Besides isn't the $100 sticker fee they charged us a big enough reminder that the tax and spend Dems in control of this town?

John McDaid

Thu, 10/09/2008 - 8:37am

Hi, interested citizen...
If you don't want to talk to someone at the transfer station, just drive on past. I've done that, and no one has ever harassed me. I'm genuinely sorry if you have had a different experience, and I would be happy to hear particulars.

By your logic, people would be prohibited from distributing campaign materials in the parking lots of schools on Election Day (at the legally required distance.) I'm sure that's not something any of us would advocate.

And since you brought it up, let me remind everyone that the transfer station fee was a direct result of the PCC cutting $600K from the Town budget at the last Tent Meeting, forcing the town to spend down the fund balance and find alternative funding for services.

But as a card-carrying member of the ACLU, I would extend even to the "cut and complain" PCC the right to distribute their propaganda.

Cheers.
-j

interested observer

Thu, 10/09/2008 - 8:51am

How long are the Dems going to hold onto the Tent meeting as the reason for their poor fiscal management? You do realize that even though the instituted the $100 fee they still funded the dump in the budget. So my question would be, Where does my $100 go?

John McDaid

Thu, 10/09/2008 - 8:55am

Hi, interested observer...
The $100 goes to pay for the transfer station.

There is no "second" hundred dollars. It is a line item in the budget for the same reason everything else is: to account for money received and paid. It's a balance sheet.

Cheers.
-j

Knowledgeable O...

Fri, 10/10/2008 - 1:08pm

Dear Interested Observer:

You said that you, "don't think any candidate or political group should be handing out propaganda on town property."

If your attitude were followed, the founding fathers would have been told to stop distributing their pamphlets in the public squares of Philadelphia and the American Revolution would not have happened. We citizens must fight for the rights of people to distribute their ideas ESPECIALLY on town property, otherwise we are inviting the town to step in and decide who gets to speak and who does not.

Candidates are American citizens too. You would advocate the government should shut them up in the name of protecting "town property." That is nothing short of anti-American.

interested observer

Fri, 10/10/2008 - 10:06pm

Your right I am being "anti-American". But what does that make Amy Rice who contacted the RIDOT to ask that all signs, of her opponents, be taken down if they were too close to the road? Typical abuse of power...

Viking

Sat, 10/11/2008 - 11:16am

There is nothing remotely abusive about enforcing the law, equally, to all. Everyone knows (or should know) - gentlemen's agreement or not - that putting signs on private property is perfectly legal. However, everyone knows (or should know) that the land 6 feet from a public road is NOT considered "private property" in this instance. For example, it is not legal to put a sign two feet from the road. Furthermore, I and others have personally observed supporters of Rice's opponent removing her signs and replacing them with their own. Alleging that reporting that this occurred is an "abuse of power" is, at best, misinformed.

ELCAPITAN

Fri, 10/10/2008 - 8:46am

If you ever have sat through a budget hearing and looked at the "balance sheet', you'll find that it is very hard to find out where the 'balance' is. Revenues are separated from expenditures in separate section of the budget sheet. So it is very hard to tell which town entiities are revenue generators and which are revenue drains. I suspect that, if we saw the real balances, many programs (some of which are very essential) would stick out like red herrings as revenue drains. We have some good things in the Town where we miss the revenue value (Like Gen Manor House). There are others where we miss the actual cost. If each Town entitiy was accounted as a separate 'business' we could see what the "real' story is (for example, if the Town collected $400,000 in transfer station user stickers and the transfer station cost (1) 375,000 for the contract, (2) $25000 fr the guard, (3) $10000 for liabiltiy insurance for a total of $410,00 - the transfer station operates at a loss of $10000.) You can't see that in one line item on the current budget sheet. My gosh. How could make it that simple to see? That woud require the managers of each entitiy to become 'accountable'. What a novel idea.

John McDaid

Fri, 10/10/2008 - 9:31am

Hi, ELCAPITAN...
I think this would be a great suggestion for the incoming Council, however it is constituted. Having sat through the budget hearings as well, I agree that having this kind of transparency would help us all have more fact-based discussions. This might not replace the actual "budget" that gets voted on, but would be a valuable addition.

I wonder if some of the folks on the Economic Development Committee might be able to advise the Council and Town Administration on how to prepare a package of human-readable consolidated operating statement, balance sheet, and cash flows.

Best,
-j

PEDC-Chair

Fri, 10/10/2008 - 12:52pm

In our Strategic Planning Process Phase I Report, the PEDC showed the main threat to the town as being the town's Competing Budget Needs (T1). Further, we identified one of the chief weaknesses to be the town's Budget Planning Process (W4). In the Second Phase Economic Strategic Planning Process, in formulation now, we are trying to dig more deeply into the budgeting processes to try to make some recommendations as to how it can be more effective.

Rich Talipsky
Chair, PEDC

John McDaid

Fri, 10/10/2008 - 1:08pm

Hi, Rich...
Thanks!

As my readers should know, Rich Talipsky is the chair of the Portsmouth Economic Development Committee, and I should have remembered that they were already thinking about the budget process. One step ahead, as usual — that's why I respect these guys and gals so much.

Rich sent me this document which was presented to the Council, Economic Strategic Planning, Phase I, and you can download by right-clicking the link.

Cheers.
-j