Town Square

Post a New Topic

Deputies talking to Alamo teens about political sign thefts

Original post made on Feb 17, 2009

Contra Costa County Sheriff's deputies are interviewing a pair of Alamo teenagers in connection with the theft of 20 political signs. Sheriff's Deputy Elmer Glasser, assigned to Alamo, said the incident occurred around 5 p.m. Feb. 15 in the area of Oak Raider Drive.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 8:54 PM

Comments (15)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Larry Levit
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 17, 2009 at 11:07 pm

yes ther was a sign claiming more than 120 signs were stolen and it was stolen today along with other thefts and defacing of signs. All signs taken or damaged were from the Yes on A group.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Community courtesy
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 18, 2009 at 7:39 am

For your reference:

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Community courtesy
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 18, 2009 at 7:46 am

POLITICAL SIGN REGULATIONS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

In the matter of Political Sign Regulations in the Unincorporated Areas of Contra Costa County:

With the exception of signs which are located on the legal Commercial Outdoor Advertising Structures, all political signs placed in areas under the jurisdiction of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department are regulated by Contra Costa County Ordinance Code title 8, Division 88, Chapter 88-6, as follows:
Article 88-6 Section 88-6.810 Political Campaign Advertising
Political signs may be erected or displayed before an election until ten days after the election inclusive. These signs may not be erected in the right-of-way of any state highway, county highway, or public road or street. (Ords. 92-36)

Other sections relating to sign placements throughout Contra Costa County:
Article 88-6.8 Section 88.6.812 Sign – On Utility Poles
No person shall post, place, attach, erect, or maintain any sign, poster, advertisement, or any material or object of any kind on a pole, post, wire, or structure maintained under a franchise by a public utility of public service corporation in the right-of-way of any county or public highway.

The director of public works may issue permits for the posting of notices required by law, by order of any court of by the board of supervisors and shall require, as condition of permit, that the notice be removed within the ten days after the expiration of the period for which the notice is being given.
Article 88-6.8 Section 88.6.618 Sign- Intersection
No outdoor advertising structure, except Type IV signs, shall be erected or maintained in such a location of position that operators of motor vehicles who are within one hundred feet of the intersection of any public road with any other public or any railroad will not have a clear and unobstructed view of the intersection and of any traffic on all roads or railroads entering the intersection for a distance of one hundred feet along all the roads or railroads, but if the sight distance at the intersection is already obstructed by building, structure, vegetation, or topography, then the outdoor advertising structures may be located within one hundred feet of the intersection, so long as they do not constitute additional obstruction of sight distances.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Alamo Tive
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 18, 2009 at 8:51 am

Now if only someone could define what the public "right-of-way" is. Go ask the county staffers. They will refer you to "Article 88-6 Section 88-6.810 Political Campaign Advertising." This is also known as circular reasoning which is not very helpful in this case.

Does anyone know what the right-of-way is and how it's defined?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Michelle
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 18, 2009 at 9:15 am

Surely there are more important issues at hand. People are losing jobs, homes, businesses etc...Give me a break.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shannon
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 18, 2009 at 9:55 am

@Michelle: No doubt there are many important issues, but that doesn't mean that criminal vandalism, theft, and the right to political free speech are not also important. In fact, the lack of fiscal solvency of the county, and the ability of the Town of Alamo to provide quality services that help to buoy our property values affect the very issues you raise.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 18, 2009 at 4:24 pm

Amen to Shannon's post.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Community courtesy
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 18, 2009 at 7:01 pm

REFERENCE: Deed property lines versus right-of-way

Pursuant to various specification of deed property lines, it is specified that property, by deed, extends into right-of-way and no trespass is authorized by any party or their signage or other posting.

Article 88-6 Section 88-6.810 Political Campaign Advertising


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Alamo Tive
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 18, 2009 at 7:41 pm

Sorry, your reference to "88-6.810 Sign--Political campaign advertising" doesn't say anything remotely resembling your description. It's just another case of circular reasoning and references. The cited reference to the County Code reads as follows:

"Political signs may be erected or displayed before an election until ten days after the election inclusive. These signs may not be erected in the right-of-way of any state highway, county highway or public road or street. (Ords. 92-36 2, 77-110 1: prior code 8353: Ord. 1009)."

So the question still is, what is the public "right-of-way" and how is it defined. Does anyone know?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Community courtesy
a resident of Blackhawk
on Feb 19, 2009 at 7:43 am

As received from Public Works:

Pursuant to various specification of deed property lines, it is specified that property, by deed, extends into right-of-way and no trespass is authorized by any party or their signage or other posting. Actual property boundaries are most typically connoted by the placement of mail boxes on the property lines with fences typically set-back to the edge of the right-of-way specified on said property.



Please review Article 88-6 Section 88-6.810 Political Campaign Advertising



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacy
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 20, 2009 at 9:06 am

This type of pettiness is exactly what we have to look forward to if we become a city -- a bunch of small people arguing over where to put a sign!!! Get real, leave Alamo the way it is!!! Move on to what is really important.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nan
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 20, 2009 at 10:26 am

I agree with Stacy that this is pettiness. However, as we parents raised our three children saying, if you choose to keep your hands out of the cookie jar, then you won't get into trouble. If your choice is to take the cookies, then YOU'VE caused the problem by YOUR chosen action. Prepare to face the consequences.

In other words, if the opposition never DID steal any signs, then this would not have been an issue. And lately with the cutting out of people's faces, which is not only weird it's wrong, highlights their choice to perform criminal actions.

I believe that the marauders' actions while being cowardly are also calculated. If they cause enough ruckus then it appears that the community is divided and raises the ire of decent folks like Stacy.

So I ask to please direct ALL blame to the faceless, cowardly, late night marauders and ask them to stop causing THEIR petty criminal woeful acts, then these types of comments will become a non-issue.

I'm all for that! Let's talk about the positive reasons why incorporation will be good for our Alamo.

Please vote YES on Measure A.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacy
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 20, 2009 at 3:21 pm

The stealing and defamation of the signs was wrong and the people should have to pay for what they did. That goes without saying. But to say that the community is united in the effort to incorporate Alamo is a farce. The truth of the matter is that the people of Alamo ARE divided. And to say that this is not so and stealing the signs makes people feel divided is ridiculous. If they weren't divided, there would be no signs for "NO on Incorporation". And I see more of these signs everyday.

In these times of economic uncertainty, this is NOT the time to take on the financial burdens of incorporation. We should stay with what we know. Putting 5 inexperienced people in charge of a new city is not what I call a good decision. Alamo is a place where people strive to live. Please don't make us like every other town with all the internal struggles. Don't try to fix what is not broken. Please vote NO on Measure A.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Michelle
a resident of Alamo
on Feb 20, 2009 at 9:55 pm

Amen to Staceys post.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Chuck
a resident of Blackhawk
on Feb 24, 2009 at 9:38 pm

Alamo ain't there
It was always just a dream
Rotten Robbie rocks


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Prop 46: Two Bridges Too Far
By Tom Cushing | 22 comments | 2,127 views

The valley loses a distinguished and humble leader
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 1,400 views

My secret identity is revealed!
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 1,160 views