Comments on: Littering Broadway?

By: david ball

david ball — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:38:58 +0000

i don’t know which is more tiring; hearing “it’s for the children” when it’s not, it’s about more money for teachers, or hearing people complain about the first amendment being exercised because it doesn’t fit in with their idea of “pretty.”

how many posts have said political signs should be banished, and steve (of all people) started the whole thing? no, signs should NOT be posted on any property without consent, but YES, we should have access to that most basic element of fair and free elections, the right to communicate via flyer or posting.

a pox on them all!

By: ahardworkingtaxpayer

ahardworkingtaxpayer — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 03:14:29 +0000

Translation of ahardworkingteacher’s comment:
“Just so I am clear, you are basing your decision about a constitutional change based on the fact that those supporting it obviously have little regard for the laws of the land.”

Actually, no… but that isn’t a horrible reason.

I am voting against it because I agree with what Brad Henry said in regards to it,
“I can tell you from experience that if State Question 744 passes, it will absolutely devastate the budget of all other critical areas of the state budget. And we can simply not allow that to happen.”
http://normantranscript.com/headlines/x1560861440/Henry-politicians-oppose-SQ-744

By: ahardworkingteacher

ahardworkingteacher — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 23:48:40 +0000

Just so I am clear – you are basing your decision whether children should receive better education on the fact you are upset over where you saw some signs. Wow. No wonder OK education ranks so low.

By: Don A.

Don A. — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:07:52 +0000

Steve,

I agree that the littering must stop. That is why all political signs should be banned or the fines for them should be enforced.

Also, I agree with ‘grolgar’ that this sounds ridiculous. I stopped believing the comment once I read ‘ninja kicks’.

Even still, the problem is obvious–signs are an eyesore plain and simple.

By: Grolgar

Grolgar — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:54:39 +0000

I agree that signs should be placed properly and this exchange sounds ridiculous, but again, please don’t judge the merits of the state question on this. I’m a frustrated teacher that knows of too many fellow teachers that lack basic resources (books, paper…) to teach. Vote how you want, but don’t cast a vote based on stories like this.

By: CaseyCornett

CaseyCornett — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 19:22:21 +0000

I think it’s dumb that it is illegal to pick up illegally-placed signs…

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:33:43 +0000

DH405 – no, I was referring to the 744 “volunteer” kicking his phone out of his hand when he started taking pictures of what they were doing.

Steve – I totally agree. Follow the ordinance of where signs can be placed so our city doesn’t look like an advertisement war everywhere you go. I’m for banning all signs both political and companies with hefty fines for those caught putting them along our streets. In today’s age with video, print and internet, there is no need to litter our city with these tacky signs. We get bombarded enough in these other medias.

By: John Y

John Y — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:04:55 +0000

I agree Steve with the above reference comment……Maybe we should stick the violators heads in the public flower planters and rename them. It would give the whole new meaning to “tack pots”. LOL.

By: slackmeyer

slackmeyer — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:03:03 +0000

Don, I don’t care about sign stealing or the politics. People just need to quit littering downtown. Do any of you really think it’s appropriate to be plunking signs into public flower planters? Really?

By: Don A.

Don A. — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:55:06 +0000

Careful to jump to conclusions folks. I have seen the people on both sides of this question crying wolf and honestly, it’s getting old. The ads, the articles, the letters and now the signs–enough!

I do agree that political signs are a nuisance and should be done away with.