Anti-Choi Library Boondoogle Signs Removed by City

It’s not election season, but Irvine residents were treated to hundreds of “political” signs urging residents to call city hall to tell Mayor Steven Choi to abandon his $150 million Library at the Great Park “legacy” project which counts on philanthropic contributions to make happen.  This is Republican infighting at best and appears to pit Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Lalloway against Choi’s tax-wasting ways if they both run for Don Wagner’s assembly seat should he win a special State Senate election on March 17.  Lalloway was absent any criticism from the “Irvine Villages for Fiscal Responsibility” even though he voted to fund a study for the Library.

We’ve received an email from the city explaining that these signs had to go even thought the AgranAudit.com signs were allowed to stay.  Both the signs lack attribution, do not promote a candidate, but the AgranAudit signs dealt with a political issue during the election cycle so the city says that was OK.  One wonders what sort of political pressure was applied to staff to make them view two signs that don’t promote a candidate differently.  Neither the Choi signs or Agran signs had attribution and both were personal.

Here’s what City manager Sean Joyce had to say about it:

City Attorney Todd Litfin has provided the following opinion concerning the “library boondoggle” signs that appear in some City rights-of-way. With the benefit of this opinion, City staff has begun removing the signs.  Staff started picking up signs at 5 a.m. and removed 105 signs as of an hour ago.  

Todd’s opinion: 

Irvine Zoning Code section 7-3-3, Sign Type #107, governs temporary political signage in the City and allows signs related to an upcoming political campaign in the public right-of-way with the limitation that such signs are, “Only allowed for political campaigns for which Irvine voters are eligible, to be removed no later than 10 days following an election.”  The current Anti-Library Signs relate to a general city issue, but do not relate to an upcoming political campaign.  Therefore, as a matter of the clear language of the ordinance, the Anti-Library signs are not allowed under the City’s Code.  The City should remove the signs according to our normal procedures because they do not comply with the City’s Code. 

The legal analysis that pertains to these Anti-Library signs is different than the legal analysis for the “Agran Audit” signs that appeared prior to the last City Council election.  The Agran Audit website referenced on the prior signs contained material that directly pertained to a political issue – the audit of matters pertaining to the Great Park  – that was an issue during the City Council campaign.  Therefore, such signs had to be allowed and treated in the same legal fashion as other political signs during that time period.  To have treated the “Agran Audit” signs as anything other than political signage would have likely been considered content-based discrimination and potentially subjected the City to liability if the City forced the removal of the ”Agran Audit” signs while allowing other City campaign signs to remain.  It is all a question of timing.  If the Anti-Library signs had appeared prior to the last Council election at the same time as other campaign signs, the City would have had to allow the Anti-Library signs as well.  However, the Anti-Library signs are not allowed currently because there is no pending campaign and no political signs are allowed during this time period.  The prohibition of all political signs at this point in time is likely a valid, content-neutral determination based simply on the lack of proximity to the election rather than the content of the sign.  If the City allowed the Anti-Library signs now, it would have to allow all political signs at any time. 

There is one caveat to the above analysis.  The United States Supreme Court has recently heard oral argument on a case out of Arizona pertaining to temporary signs, and expects to render a decision in May or June of this year.  The case could completely change the rules that pertain to temporary political signs.  Once the Court issues a judgment in that case, I may be emailing you and the City that we need to change our approach to political signs moving forward.

It’s not a matter of timing but one of hypocrisy and double-standards.  I would have loved to see the city face litigation on the AgranAudit signs to see someone step forward and claim responsibility for it.