Republicans Litter Irvine with Political Signs Against Someone Not Running

Irvine drivers along Michelson were treated to a fresh batch of orange “AgranAudit” signs on both sides of the roadway.  These signs were allowed during last fall’s political season as Larry Agran was running for re-election.  But Agran is out of office.  There’s no city election.  And the Irvine Police report numerous calls from residents complaining about the signs.

Earlier this year, a “stop the library boondoggle” signs popped up and the city removed those signs because there was no election.  The reasoning posted by a city attorney was offered by City Manager Sean Joyce in a February memo to the city council:

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.

Initially, Irvine police told residents these signs were a free speech issue until residents corrected them on the prior ruling.  We’re told by the Irvine Police that code enforcement was out removing the signs at taxpayer cost.

The final investigation report is scheduled to be presented on March 24.  The re-emergence of these signs just serves as a reminder the website it promotes is barely updated with one new memo posted.  There’s a URL on the new signs for the “Committee That Cares” which doesn’t seem to exist online.  Since Dick Ackerman runs the “Irvine Cares” site, perhaps he’s a part of this new committee.  But this smells of Jon Fleischman.

But what is really happening here is littering.  If you’re driving around town and see these things going in the ground, snap some photos with your smartphone; get license plate numbers too.  Call the police.  Press charges.

Irvine taxpayers have paid up to $1.5 million for an investigation that was supposed to cost $240,000.  Its a taxpayer funded political witchhunt where Republicans Christina Shea and Jeff Lalloway want one outcome — criminal charges.  The reality is if there was any there, there, they would have used it in last November’s election.  The fact that neither Lalloway or Shea want the state assembly investigating how the city has conducted this investigation says everything you need to know — they’re all about transparency unless its sharing their own.