O.B.'s handling of sign law described as unfair Resident: Town enforced sign law differently for town, school elections BY JESSICA SMITH Staff Writer OLD BRIDGE - Concerns about inequity and ambiguity have prompted township officials to review the town's sign ordinance. Councilman Richard Greene spearheaded the effort to have a committee formed to look at revamping the local ordinance. "I think, overall, the town should be more aggressive in their sign ordinance," Greene said. "I don't think the enforcement is consistent." Resident Anita Greenberg broached the topic after the November elections, when she spoke at Township Council meetings about "Team Old Bridge" signs being left around town beyond the time period permitted by the current ordinance. Another problem with the signs - from the campaign of Mayor Jim Phillips, Council President Ed Testino, Councilman Pat Gillespie and candidate Joe Pruiti- was that some were posted on poles, which is a prohibited practice, Greenberg said. Though she informed the mayor and code enforcement officials about the issue several times, the signs remained up, according to Greenberg. "I called [the code enforcement office] back and asked if they were going to do anything about it, and they said they couldn't, because of whose it was," she said. Phillips said he could not imagine who would have told her such a thing, and explained why the signs were left behind. "Each time [I run], I dedicate the next day to spending my own time going around taking down my signs," Phillips said. "Every once in a while, one gets missed - that's the nature of a town that's 42 square miles. I see signs in town that say 'Recall Haney,' who was mayor before Barbara Cannon, so sometimes signs get missed." The township ordinance calls for political signs to be taken down within 10 days of an election. According to Greenberg, the signs were not removed until a month and nine days after the Nov. 6 election, despite her bringing attention to the issue. She said Phillips should have paid a fine, as anyone else in violation of the ordinance would be required to do. According to Phillips, if signs are left up beyond the 10-day grace period and the road department has to remove them, a fine of $1 per sign is issued to the responsible party. A more recent issue arose after the April 15 Board of Education elections when, within two days, Phillips asked road department workers to remove candidates' signs. Greenberg addressed the matter at the April 28 meeting, saying the ordinance was enforced inequitably. "No one's following the rules here, and you make things up as you go along," Greenberg said. "What was the urgency less than 48 hours after the [school] election?" Making matters worse, she said, was the fact that some of the signs were removed from private property. "They were on people's lawns," Greenberg said. "What gives you the right to take someone's signs down on private property?" Phillips told Greenberg he asked road department workers to remove the signs, but was not aware of their removal from private property. "I take a lot of pride in Old Bridge, and in keeping our town clean," Phillips said. "I think political signs are a price we pay for free and open elections. It's a balancing act. I believe the signs ... were in the public right of way, and that's why the road department took them down." The fault in the situation was with a new road worker's mistake of throwing the signs away, instead of allowing the candidates to pick them up, Phillips said. Greenberg agreed, saying candidates can often modify and reuse signs, and losing them could be considered a financial hardship for some. It is especially a loss for Board of Education candidates, who generally do not receive the financial support given to political candidates, she said. "They don't have a PAC [political action committee] or monetary contributions supporting them," Greenberg said. Linda Seiler, another resident, questioned why taxpayer dollars were spent to remove signs that were not up past the deadline, and were on private land. "They should be picked up, but they should not be picked up by township personnel," Greene said in an interview. Councilman Bob Volkert agreed. "You have to give the person the opportunity to take the signs down," Volkert said. "It should be up to the candidate to take down their own signs." According to Greene, 10 days is too long of a grace period. Instead, it should be something like 48 or 72 hours, he said. Aside from the other issues raised, Greenberg said some of the school board candidates' signs did not follow regulations, because they did not state who sponsored them. Political signs have not been the only type to raise ire in the township. Though they are the only type of temporary sign permitted to be posted in town, signs promoting businesses, real estate and other services often crop up, officials said. Volkert said he received a number of complaints fromresidents about a year ago when business owners were posting signs on the outskirts of shopping centers and gas stations. The problemresulted in the township hiring a part-time employee to help correct it, because code enforcement did not have the manpower to address it, he said. Greene said he is working on coordinating a date for the new committee, which consists of him, code enforcement officials, Councilman Kevin Calogera and Councilwoman Lucille Panos. Greene thinks the township should be more aggressive enforcing what he called a quality-of-life issue. "It's not going to be a simple thing, because people are going to have differences of opinion," Greene said. Greenberg said the signs are an eyesore, and she would like to see something done. "I urge them strongly to go ahead and have a strong sign ordinance, but most importantly, if you're going to have it, you should enforce it," Greenberg said.