As I drive around McHenry County, I see many election signs in the right-of-way along roads. The signs are placed in violation of IDOT and McHenry County laws.
IDOT is clearly in charge of enforcing sign laws along State highways (you know the ones: 14, 47, 176, 173, 31, 23, etc.). The County's Planning Department has told me that it does not enforce the County's sign laws; those laws are enforced by the townships.
Maybe that explains why the sign violations are not enforced along County roads...
So, what do I do? I think I know the law. Do I place my signs in the right-of-way because the law is not enforced? Or do I just watch the visibility of other candidates' campaigns and know they are gaining an edge by violating the law? As I drove around the County yesterday, I saw many places to put signs, and I chose not to.
Or do I assume that, maybe, there must be a section of law that I haven't found, which permits campaign signs to be posted in the right-of-way, since the County Sheriff has so many of his signs placed in the right-of-way? I think I'll go with this one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Best Advise Gus...."When in Rome!"
If it's illegal to post the signs on state (or any other government) right of way, why then would they make it a criminal offense to remove those signs? IDOT, is not, AFAIK a law enforcement agency and they cannot enforce any law pertaining to signs posted on their right of way.
This is all so clear, isn't it? Just like that crystal clear law you tell us about that prohibits the police and fire rigs from sounding their sirens, etc. when escorting soldiers, etc.
You still haven't found it, have you? Just a figment of your imagination or wishing how it should be? According to Gus' law, that is.
Wasn't that a state right of way at Judd and Route 47 where one of your signs was posted last week? Before or after it was allegedly stolen by the Nygren camp who so fears your candidacy? Bwaahaaahhaaa! Stop! It hurts when you make us laugh like that!
Have you thought of checking with the Historical Society as to the location of your sign?
Just another feel-good law that is unenforceable in a practical manner.
Just - I think that any law against removing anothers' signage is considered an entirely separate issue from the legality of it's placement in the first place.
First, I think that anyone invested in removing opponents' signs is a coward. It means your candidate's message is inferior to other candidates'. You have nothing left to offer other than brute force.
Second, SIGH! A candidate is in a poor position regarding enforcement of laws regarding signage. Their supporters will do what they will do, particularly as informed (or not) by laws that are never enforced anyway.
Third - unfortunately, there are voting morons who are motivated by signage prolifigacy alone.
If you don't know an election looms, and you know nothing regarding the various candidates' positions and the issues in play, you are a moron - plain and simple.
To quell the comments pertaining to the use of emergency lights on police, fire and ambulance vehicles one only needs to read:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=062500050HCh.+12+Art.+II&ActID=1815&ChapterID=49&SeqStart=127500000&SeqEnd=129300000
Even a layman can come to the conclusion that the use of emergency lighting/sirens is not authorized for parades, escorts, etc..
Do you think it will be on the second floor or the third?
Several years ago I inquired of Woodstock City Hall whether it would be legal to remove garage sale signs posted illegally in the right-of-way. Keyword: "inquired".
The reply was that it was illegal to remove them AND that I would be subject to prosecution if I did so. And they did mean "me".
It would have been perfectly adequate just to reply that, "Yes, it's illegal to remove them." They felt it necessary to ram it down my throat that they would be keeping an eye on me.
Now I am so afraid in Woodstock that I won't even step on a crack in a sidewalk! Yeah, sure...
M.U.G., thanks! For the benefit of other readers, it's Sec. 12-215 in your link that addresses the issue of lights, sirens, airhorn on fire vehicles.
I had my Illinois Vehicle Code out today and was looking for time to go through it. As careful readers will note, it's the fire chief's vehicle that is restricted for use of emergency equipment only when responding to a bona fide emergency.
The legislature was sloppy in not carrying that language into the next section, although any reasonable person would do so.
I agree with you about laymen's understanding. Thanks!
Yep, 12-215 addresses the question of lights seemingly on ALL emergency vehicles in this state. However, with regard to those we've been discussing, the ONLY vehicles which it says must be engaged in the emergency transport of patients or on a call of that nature is ambulances and rescue type vehicles. With regard to law enforcement vehicles it stands mute. They can have the light illuminated or not. They MUST have them on while in pursuit. NOTHING says they cannot use them while driving through the drive-up at Dunkin Donuts or Mickey D's. You will note - being the stickler for details (real and unreal) that you are, that there are many other vehicles which are allowed to have various flavors of lighting. In most cases, you will also note that the state statute specifies exactly when they may and when they may not use those lights. The only time the legislature addresses the USE of lights on law enforcement vehicles is when they say they MUST have them illuminated while in pursuit. I don't think that means they cannot use it at other times at the officer's discretion. Same thing with the fire trucks (not ambulance/rescue vehicle). They can have the lights. Nothing is said about when they may use them. It is, I think, axiomatic in the law that what is not prohibited is permitted. So, unless it's specifically prohibited, they can do what they wish. Until, that is, Gus becomes king and starts governing by fiat!
Somewhere in the I.V.C. a statute says that fire trucks can use lights and sirens while going to a fire (or other emergency), but not when returning from. One of these days I'll come across that section again.
The Woodstock City Council will be asked tomorrow night to obtain a written opinion from the City Attorney that it is legal to use lights & sirens to escort a soldier to his home for a party and to use City equipment and personnel for that purpose.
There also WAS a statue that stated fireman were allowed to ride on the rear of a fire truck when responding to an emergency call, however it didn't cover returning home to the firehouse. I guess they had to call a cab. NOW all must ride in the cab due to OSHA. Gus, you may find there is much conundrum within the statutes, if splitting hairs is your ambition.
Post a Comment