At the second meeting of the Board of Supervisors, our newly-elected representatives eliminated the volunteer portion of Loudoun’s sign removal program. Citing potential liability and the ever-present sign-gossip underground, violators who place signs in the VDOT right of way now only have zoning officials to worry about.
It was an odd program to begin with and one we’re probably well-rid of. It allowed volunteers to remove private property from public areas under state law and county enforcement. There’s a lawsuit in there somewhere.
Every year, particularly during campaign season, the sign patrols go out in force, spreading ill-will and accusations back and forth about who had the most illegal signs and whose campaign illegally removed signs from private property. It’s the unfortunate state of political discourse. Far too much time is spent every year discussing the legality of different signs and their removal.
“How can you ask someone to vote for you if you’re breaking the law?” is the mantra of those to whom the sign laws are a core issue.
Part of the problem is that the law concerning signs in the VDOT right of way is far too expansive for the problem it seeks to correct. Under current law, there can be no signs within 25-150 feet from the road’s center line. Those who do so without obtaining a VDOT permit may be assessed a $100 penalty.
To begin with, the size of the right of way is intentionally vague (125 feet variance?), leaving everyone uncertain as to whether a sign is legally present without a call to the VDOT sign office.
Under the Loudoun’s sign removal program, volunteers were instructed only to remove signs within 5 feet from the pavement. Already using different rules, the program did not address all signs in the VDOT right of way, just the ones the county believed were the biggest nuisance.
The supposed purpose of the sign licensing within the VDOT right of way is to reduce nuisance and clutter, but the primary goal is the keep the area clear for motorists to pull over and road crews to work. These are admirable goals except that VDOT does very little in the way of sign removal itself, maintaining the right to remove the signs but mostly leaving the responsibility to local authorities because VDOT does not have the finances to regularly patrol the streets.
That in itself is might indicate how seriously the state takes the importance of these signs. If there is a law on the books, then resources should be available to enforce that law. If not, then perhaps the problem is with the law itself.
For most of us, illegal signs in the VDOT right of way seem like just another nuisance with those signs being illegal in the same sense that driving 60 mph in a 55 mph zone, tearing the tag off your mattress or drinking during Prohibition was illegal. However, it is just this type of law without enforcement that makes criminals of us all. And knowing that such a minor act is illegal (and that everyone does it) begins to insidiously degrade our respect for the law in general.
We agree that a program adding volunteers to the sign removal program was fraught with too many problems and potential liability. Volunteer sign removal? Is the next step volunteer tax collectors and police investigators? Part of the reason for having professional employees do the job is that they are technically above accusations of bias … because it’s their job.
Our solution is this: if VDOT has neither the time nor inclination to enforce rules about illegal signs on the road, then the authority to set the rules as to what signage is acceptable should be returned to the respective counties and towns. Then, Loudoun can make a more reasonable determination as to what signs are temporarily acceptable. Some localities have a three-day law, whereby signs will only be removed after three days – allowing common sense advertisements for church functions, open houses and yard sales.
Localities might decide that a per-sign fee is appropriate. Even better, the existing $100 fine could ensure a revenue stream for counties to pay for enforcement.
And if the result is too much clutter on the roads? Perhaps our lawmakers will then produce a more workable solution for managing the beauty of the roadways and actually finance a method to maintain it.
Give our supervisors a roll of bumper stickers that they can place on these illegal signs. It can say this sign is illegal singed BOS. Let people know who is breaking the law in that manner
“or most of us, illegal signs in the VDOT right of way seem like just another nuisance with those signs being illegal in the same sense that driving 60 mph in a 55 mph zone, tearing the tag off your mattress or drinking during Prohibition was illegal. However, it is just this type of law without enforcement that makes criminals of us all.”
Wait. What?
Tourists heading out to Middleburg to spend their out of town money in our county don’t see your ripped off mattress tag. Or the 15 miles an hour over the speed limit you’re going. Or…um, Prohibition.
They see signs. Everywhere. Illegal ones. Some, believe it or not, that developers (oops, sorry Barb, I’m picking on them again) have actually run electricity to to make sure you can’t miss them.
This editorial was based on a lack of knowledge of the law. VDOT had the obligation to remove the signs and was not doing it. But then the county took over that responsibility for Loudoun. It was for that reason the volunteer program was begun.
Those signs are not just political signs, they are cheap advertising at the expense of the public, and I agree that they should be considered roadside trash if they are not on private property with the permission of the property owner, and the volunteers were trained to determine and respect that. Now thanks to this stupid BOS there are no volunteers but we are back to lots of trash. They took a good solution to a problem and made it a problem again. And this editorial is just wrongheaded.
Outrageous and, sadly, not surprising at all. You get what you vote for, Loudoun. Remember this and, I’m sure much more to come, when next you vote.
What a disappointing editorial….wrong on so many counts. Illegal posting of signs in the Right of Way should be removed—-doesn’t matter if someone thinks it is their private property or not. If it gets put where it doesn’t belong, it should go. There should be no questioning this. The fact there were volunteers willing to do this for all of us makes this even a sadder statement from the BOS. Yet another disappointing decision by the BOS….come on guys, we voted you in to represent the public not the private donators who wish to clear the way for their political buddies or developer friends.
Barb, Am I not to take the editorial writer’s own words at face value? Furthermore, based on what others have commented here, it does not appear that I am being hyperbolic in the least.
Eric, you seem to have a hyperbole problem.
It’s called hypocrisy; laws regarding signs (and other things) only apply when they suit you.
Republicans rant and rave about ILLEGAL immigrants, but have no problem at all with ILLEGAL signs.
They are so law and order tough until the law bites them in their own wallets.
“First, I suppose you wish to eliminate the Adopt-A-Roadway program as well as this is EXACTLY the same thing. Litter/trash removal from our public roadways.”
“‘...or drinking during Prohibition was illegal’...I wonder if you feel the same about illegal drug use now.”
Barb, You have a reading comprehension problem. You should see someone about that.
BTW, last time I looked, alcohol WAS an illegal drug during the prohibition era.
So please show me where they specifically advocated FOR the elimination of Adopt a Highway, and FOR illegal drug use?
Not with six degrees of local-Dem-talking-point-Kevin-Bacon, either.
Specifically.
“Over the top much, Eric?”
Not in the slightest, Barb.
It is beyond comprehension that you could try to defend this travesty! 80 volunteers helping keep our county beautiful and these politicians get rid of this money saving worthwhile program to make their contributors happy and make sure their signs stay out forever at election time, no matter how ugly and pervasive. Thanks for NOTHING.
Over the top much, Eric?
“For most of us, illegal signs in the VDOT right of way seem like just another nuisance with those signs being illegal in the same sense that driving 60 mph in a 55 mph zone, tearing the tag off your mattress or drinking during Prohibition was illegal.”
I wonder if you feel the same about illegal drug use now. No big deal, eh? What a great example you are setting as a supposed community leader, LTM.
Hope our kids don’t read this editorial. “But they said in the paper that we can break the law and nobody cares, Dad!” “Sorry, Son, that’s just Bill Dean talking.”
“It allowed volunteers to remove private property from public areas under state law and county enforcement. There’s a lawsuit in there somewhere.”
Those who posted the signs broke the law. They should not have posted anything in the VDOT right-of-way to begin with. Their “private” property becomes trash in the public ROW. There is no lawsuit “in there somewhere” except against those illegally posting.
The legal verbiage about posting in the VDOT ROW is state code and state law. There is no justifying and/or protecting the offenders.
It’s a shame that LTM would publicly defend scofflaws.
First, I suppose you wish to eliminate the Adopt-A-Roadway program as well as this is EXACTLY the same thing. Litter/trash removal from our public roadways.
Second, these signs (most of which are actually NOT political signs - do some stinking investigtive reporting why don’t you) are NOT private property since they have been placed on PUBLIC property - they are trash. Would someone who throws out a can on the public ROW have a lawsuit against the county if someone picked it up and disposed of it? Or course not. Your argument is absolutely absurd. Do I now have the right to put ANYTHING in the ROW and claim protection for it as “private property”? I think I will build an apartment complex on the Rte. 7 median strip - you can’t touch it because it is MY private property. Do you see how STUPID your argument is?
Finally, this is not an enforcement program for VDOT - if it were, these citizens would have the right to fine offenders. They don’t (even though that MIGHT be nice). They have the right to identify and remove trash - nothing more, nothing less.
Poster #1 is right, BTW, what do you expect from Bill Dean.
What a big surprise! Bill Dean’s Loudoun Times Mirror backs up the Bill Dean Board of Supervisors!
Updated: Thirteen-year-old pedestrian hit crossing Route 7 near Dulles Town Center
UPDATE: Missing Leesburg man drowns in drainage pond
Leesburg high schools switch things around
Loudoun inmate dies after suffering massive stroke in prison
Two Loudoun County residents involved in $1.5 million mortgage scheme
