Free John Decker! (charged with removing illegal signs from public property)

[FrankChodorov]

http://www.portsmouthherald.com/news/08112006/nhnews-ph--p-sign.law.html

PORTSMOUTH -- John Decker, known locally as the "sign bandit," said he was surprised when Portsmouth police showed up at his Stratham home Thursday night to arrest him.

"I would have appreciated a phone call," Decker said at 11:30 p.m. after he was released.

Decker had been informed of a warrant for his arrest earlier in the week, and was scheduled to be booked Saturday at the police station on a charge of theft by unauthorized taking. He'd planned a pre-arrest rally for 3 p.m. that day in support of his mission to rid the Seacoast of what he says are illegally placed roadside advertisements and signs.

Of the stepped-up arrest, Portsmouth police Lt. Fred Hoysradt said, "I wanted to avoid a horse-and-pony show." He explained that it's normal policy for police to carry out an arrest as soon as possible once a warrant has been issued.

"This is exactly what he wanted from the beginning," said Billy Decker, John Decker's son, who said his father would be willing to take "drastic action" to change something he views as a big problem.

"I'm still committed to having the rally in the same location," John Decker said.

In addition to the publicity an arrest and rally would generate, John Decker also said he wants to get legislative support to tighten up the state statute that bans roadside advertising signs from public property.

"It isn't about the police or arrest," Decker said Thursday. "It's about good legislation to remove these signs from state highways."

So far, at least one legislator has offered his support.

State Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth, said Decker's cause is a good one. He said he doesn't think Decker's doing anything wrong.

Decker was pleased with the response.

"I think it's great that there's legislative support, and I'd be happy to talk with him," Decker said. "The sooner we get legislation going on this, the better."
discuss What do you think? Post your comments here!
Roadside signs - take 'em or leave 'em?

In 2003, Splaine introduced House Bill 695, a bill to ban political signs from public property. It didn't pass, but Splaine said maybe it's time for another bill, to ban all the signs.

"I see a good cause here," said Splaine. "Signs on public property, including political signs, is litter, and the advertising ones are illegal. It is not unlike me throwing away a coffee cup, and if someone wants to pick it up and put it in the trash, I say thank you."

Splaine said the signs are not an issue of free speech.

"If I was standing there and holding a sign for office or my point of view, that's OK," Splaine said. "I have not abandoned it. If I drop that cup, or leave a sign on the side of the highway, I am littering. That's the issue."

Splaine said he can't attend Decker's rally because of a prior commitment.

"I can, at the very least, give him moral support," Splaine said. "I think it's good when citizens stand up for what they think is right."

A forum on SeacoastConnects.com showed mostly supportive responses to Decker's actions, except in cases when he left the signs in place, but spray-painted the word "scam" on them. People who posted said he was just adding to the litter.

"I am not going to write on them anymore," said Decker. "I can just keep taking them."

Within the forum, Decker outed the companies he has been targeting.

My issue is with commercial interests," he said. "While Universal Spa and Furniture is the most blatant sign placer, 1 (800) GOT-JUNK, CertaPro painters, CollegePro painters and many others are on my list for sign removal."

[Kat Kanning]

What a stupid cause.

[FrankChodorov]

What a stupid cause.

just picking up litter along the side of the road...

don't some FSP folks do this in the Keene area under the "adopt a highway" program?
as anarchists don't you think it is a good idea to remove these political signs?

if Russell just left his pamphlets on the lawn infront of the post office don't you think he would be littering?

[KBCraig]

What a stupid cause.

It wouldn't be my priority, but most of the signs are nothing more than litter.

[lildog]

The law says the owners of the signs placed illegally need to be given 24 hours to take them down.

In many cases people running for office don?t know what locations are legal and which are not, on top of that they spend a lot of money on their signs? so why should some ding dong be free to come over because he as a private citizen thinks the signs are illegal (the law allows police to remove the signs after the 24 hour )?  And without giving the person who may have put the sign up by accident a chance to take and move it themselves?

RSA 664:17 Placement and Removal of Political Advertising. ? No political advertising shall be placed on or affixed to any public property including highway rights-of-way or private property without the owner's consent. The earliest date on which political advertising may be placed or affixed shall be the last Friday in July prior to a state primary. All political advertising shall be removed by the candidate no later than the second Friday following the election unless the election is a primary and the advertising concerns a candidate who is a winner in the primary. No person shall remove, deface or knowingly destroy any political advertising which is placed on or affixed to any private property except the owner of the property or a law enforcement officer removing improper advertising; provided, however, that, before a law enforcement officer removes any advertisement, he shall notify the candidate that it is improper, and allow the candidate 24 hours to remove the advertisement himself.

[CNHT]

What a stupid cause.

I agree but only if it were that simple. There is an agenda here...

Bottom line here is, it's about time someone was ARRESTED for illegal removal of political signs, by a Democrat.

In the past, only conservatives would be prosecuted for this. Notice that Geoff Wetrosky, poster boy for voter fraud, was never even fined for illegally removing his opponent's poltiical signs which is clearly against the law, just before he voted in the Manchester city election while clearly NOT a resident of NH, and with no intentions of being one.

I say throw the book at Decker.

If property is 'public' then it means people paid taxes and thus own this 'in common'. (Hate to sound like Frank here, but...it's true)
Thus they should be allowed to post their political signs on this property two weeks before the elections and with removal one week after.
I am sure that this is what this is about, and removing commercial signs, which are NEVER disallowed, is just clouding the issue.

[lildog]

If property is 'public' then it means people paid taxes and thus own this 'in common'.

You beat me to the point I was going to make.

If it's PUBLIC property then everyone owns it and should be free to use it.

[CNHT]

What a stupid cause.

It wouldn't be my priority, but most of the signs are nothing more than litter.

They are not litter when someone is running for office or advocating a vote on something. They are free speech being squelched wrongly by their selective and illegal removal by unauthorized parties. And you can't know what it's like to spend money on signs and then have them removed without just cause.

[KBCraig]

It wouldn't be my priority, but most of the signs are nothing more than litter.

They are not litter when someone is running for office or advocating a vote on something.

I'm talking about commercial signs. "Lose weight now!" "Work from home!" "1-800-SCAM-ME!"

Political signs are only occasional, and temporary. The party responsible for them is clearly identified. But who do you call about the MLM scam signs that pop up year 'round? They're litter.

Kevin

[CNHT]

It wouldn't be my priority, but most of the signs are nothing more than litter.

They are not litter when someone is running for office or advocating a vote on something.

I'm talking about commercial signs. "Lose weight now!" "Work from home!" "1-800-SCAM-ME!"

Political signs are only occasional, and temporary. The party responsible for them is clearly identified. But who do you call about the MLM scam signs that pop up year 'round? They're litter.

Kevin

Yes but this is election time and this is just a cover for him to remove those as well. It happens every year. It's about time someone was arrested and charged.
Other than that, you never hear about anyone removing those signs....ever.

[Revmar]

Once again, the problem is the very existance of "public" property.  Who determins it's use if everyone pays for it?  Just becasue a sign says "1-800-scam me" does not mean I have to call the number.  didn't that person pay for that "Public Property" just as you did.

It can all be solved by not having public property in the first place.  Then, if the land owner does not like a sign, it can become kindling for thier fireplace! 

[FrankChodorov]

If property is 'public' then it means people paid taxes and thus own this 'in common'.

You beat me to the point I was going to make.

If it's PUBLIC property then everyone owns it and should be free to use it.

you two obviously don't understand the difference between collective property and property owned in common because you are trying to use the same word - public - to mean both.

you have no right to use collectively owned property except for what it is explicitly intended without getting prior consent from all the other owners (consensus) or their delegated authority (goverment - elected or otherwise).

I can't go borrow the town plow (collective property) anytime I want to clear my driveway of snow but as an individual for individual consumption, I can drill a well on my land to freely access the groundwater which is owned in common...

[FrankChodorov]

Once again, the problem is the very existance of "public" property.  Who determins it's use if everyone pays for it?  Just becasue a sign says "1-800-scam me" does not mean I have to call the number.  didn't that person pay for that "Public Property" just as you did.

It can all be solved by not having public property in the first place.  Then, if the land owner does not like a sign, it can become kindling for thier fireplace! 

and another one to the list...free speech, assembly, right of ways are all common not collective rights.

everything that precedes human labor is originally owned in common as the groundwater and lakes over 20 acres are still today in NH

[Revmar]

everything that precedes human labor is originally owned in common as the groundwater and lakes over 20 acres are still today in NH

Okay, I must misunderstand you.  It sounds like you are saying that there can be no private ownership of land; it was all here long before Human labor.  You can't mean that......can you? 

[tracysaboe]

Once again, the problem is the very existance of "public" property.  Who determins it's use if everyone pays for it?  Just becasue a sign says "1-800-scam me" does not mean I have to call the number.  didn't that person pay for that "Public Property" just as you did.

It can all be solved by not having public property in the first place.  Then, if the land owner does not like a sign, it can become kindling for thier fireplace! 

Word

Tracy