Obvious Aesthetic Abuse Of Political Signs

To the Editor:

Using an all too familiar IPN “win at all costs” strategy, Mr Hennessey, in his 12/1/09 letter to The Bee [Letter Hive, “English Needs A History Lesson”], chose to lead with stating my role serving the town as an elected volunteer official and my connection to the local Democratic Party. Do this volunteer position and my party affiliation serve as disqualifiers from expressing public opinion on significant issues as an individual citizen? Interesting, especially when one looks at the opinions voiced on issues both in The Bee and other local venues by members of the IPN and IPN officials.

In October of 2008, in a letter to The Newtown Bee, I questioned the “Gentleman’s Agreement” term used to argue against homeowners placing lawn signs on properties of residence. The IPN introduced lawn signs by placing them on lawns of supporter’s houses in 2007. I stated that there was no “Gentleman’s Agreement” and such a term has outlived its usefulness and appropriateness in our society for any issue, but specifically when responding to issues regarding lawn signs in Newtown. My intent was to show that there is no “smoke-filled-back-room-deal” regarding lawn signs and residents are not restricted by some agreement regarding signage placement. It was clear, however, that there still remained a communitywide desire to keep Newtown free from an onslaught of lawn signs and remain respectful of the overall tranquility of our town while respecting individual freedoms. However, partially as a result of the 2007 IPN lawn signs and partially due to an historic election, during the 2008 presidential campaign there were signs on the lawns of houses supporting candidates, and I referenced that issue. As I recall, they were far from overbearing and all-consuming and seemed restricted to actual front lawns.

Fast-forward to Newtown this fall when IPN sign use was amped-up to an oppressive level. Firstly, my role in the DTC does not signal an acceptance of large campaign signs on commercial properties and to imply my acceptance of same is not appropriate. Secondly, there is a major difference between an individual citizen’s right to expression, like placing a lawn sign, flying the American flag, putting up Christmas lights, displaying a Menorah, etc, all on the property of their residence, and a political party strategically placing partisan political signs on nonresidential properties. It is manipulation of the concept of a single “lawn-sign” placed in front of a house by a homeowner. In addition to the obvious aesthetic abuse caused by a proliferation of political lawn signs, many times these multiple signs are placed only a few feet from the roadside, thus producing not only a very unattractive sightline but also a visual impairment.

The Newtown Democratic and Republican Parties should avoid the urge to follow “an eye for an eye” approach and get into a wrestling match with the IPN by mimicking the massive and obsessive sign pollution being orchestrated by the IPN! The spirit of Newtowners’ individual freedoms of expression need to be balanced and protected against well-calculated and overbearing signs proliferating locally.

Sincerely,

Richard English

3 Curry Drive, Newtown                                            December 5, 2009