Disgraceful. Shameless. Those words come to mind over the Marlboro Township Council’s decision to prohibit the placement of political signs on public property. Let’s ask ourselves the following questions and keep score in the manner of baseball:
Question 1: Who benefits from restricting political signs? Answer: Incumbents, who could then promote their programs and campaigns by staging taxpayer-funded events and controlling access to prominent public venues. Strike One.
Question 2: If litter caused by signs is truly a problem, wouldn’t it have been simpler (and more respectful of the First Amendment) to assess fines on those campaigns that did not remove their signs on a timely basis, say, two weeks after the election? Answer: Yes. Strike two.
Question 3: Are 13,000 residences scattered throughout Marlboro and obscured by trees or hidden at the end of cul-de-sacs a satisfactory alternative to posting signs at centrally located, heavily trafficked public places? Answer: Absolutely not. Most residents are hesitant to post political signs out of a sense of neighborly decorum and only those homes adjacent to major roads would ever be seen by more than a handful of people. Strike three.
Other arguments made in support of the ban, i.e., distraction and clutter, are pure nonsense. Try making that argument in Times Square. The concession to drop the 90-day jail term was pure political theater; the council must have known that Marlboro residents, let alone the courts, would never stand for such a draconian remedy to such trivial and commonplace nuisances as litter, clutter and distraction.
In baseball, three strikes and you’re out. In Marlboro, under Mayor Jonathan Hornik and the Township Council, three strikes get you another turn at bat. Disgraceful. Shameless.
Jesus E. Moreno
Marlboro