As the election nears we're seeing more and more signs gracing our streets. Some of them are relatively inoffensive, some are relatively ineffective, and others are just plain irritating.
One of my big beefs when it comes election time in this berg is the number of people running for election who turn a deaf ear and blind eye to the City of Calgary Sign Bylaw. Ok, I can understand that perhaps Jenkins or Heck might not be completely familiar with civic bylaws, but I think it is totally unexcusable when a candidate who is currently sitting on council to not be familiar with bylaws.
The City of Calgary is quite clear in what their expectations are for signage in their sign bylaw, and provide a clearly stated list of what is and what is not permissible right within each candidate information package.
I get downright grumpy when I drive down a street festooned with a white, orange and blue characture of Conservative Signs proclaiming their support of Ric McIver (or the other McIverites who are running their own little PGIB block in this election) - especially when he has chosen to post these signs within 30 meters of an intersection, right at the side of the road (two meters is six feet pal!), as well as on a median. Personally I find his signs to be most unsightly, especially those that have the large black line crossing out information on what I can only guess to be a previous election date. (Say, doesn't that qualify as graffiti?).
I guess that good old Ric is exempt from the sign bylaw - after all, Blackfoot Trail is a prohibited roadway (Ric, perhaps we ought to amend that sign bylaw to read that Blackfoot Trail is a prohibited roadway for everyone EXCEPT Ric - and if we don't will you start screaming to the media about how unfair it all is and how mean the other candidates are being to you? After all, that seems to be all that we hear any time that things don't quite go your way in council.... it's poor David against big mean Goliath)
But apart from those who really ought to know better, we're seeing a lot of signs that contravene the bylaw. And some that are quite amazing in their ingeniuty.
Lindsay Luhnau is being quite thrifty and artistic with her green on white signage. Pity that she didn't choose a shade of green that was dark enough to have a bit of contrast. I think that hers, although small and difficult to read, are some of the more innovatively designed signs out there.
James Kohut is taking a unique view to his signage (one might even call him a Banner Candidate - if you will forgive the pun). I drove past two of his home-made signs and scratched my head at the message he is trying to get out. "BAN CALGARYS CORRUPT AMERICAN DOLLAROCRACY STYLE OF ELECTION" and "BAN CORPORATE AND UNION POLITICAL DONATIONS UNLEASH REAL DEMOCRACY" (Hmmm, depending where you punctuate that second sign perhaps the meaning is intended to be "Ban Corporate and Union, Political Donations Unlease Real Democracy"). Apart from being wordy and difficult to understand, Kohut's signs do very little to further his campaign - after all, he apparently doesn't want me to vote for him, he is instead asking me to ban things that are outside of my control. He tells me very little about what he believes in - and gives me very little reason to want to vote for a NAYSAYER THAT BELIEVES ALL CAPITALS ARE EASY TO READ.
Some days I find the signs to be most irritating - some roads are plastered with a row of ten or twenty of them, all shouting for attention. The candidates seem to clump together like a bewildered heard of wildebeast - not a single candidate seems to notice that the road is open to two-way traffic, and nobody has posted a sign on the opposite direction. (This is repeated in hundreds of places across the city).
As the election draws closer I am sure that we will see many more signs go up, parodies of the Conservatives, parodies of the Liberals, and parodies of good taste all mixed in as the frenzy of the countdown builds up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Personally, I'm getting pretty tired of seeing Alnoor's signage everywhere.
What's he after - rumour has it he's shelling out nearly 7 digits in campaign spending to get a job that pays $160,000 - doesn't quite add up, does it? (especially when he is ostensibly spending his own money, not donations he's accumulated)
Well, if (and that's a big if) he DOES get in, he would earn $480 over the course of three years... plus small perks, such as being able to influence civic policies that impact his other companines. Ooops! Did I just say that part out loud?
Personally I think that we ought to limit campaign spending to make it a more level playing field. Rather than post those ideas in this comment, I will continue it in a new post.
Post a Comment