Political Signage Regulation Debated At Ridgewood Council Meeting

RIDGEWOOD, NJ — Ridgewood Village Council members are at odds over whether a section in the municipal law regulating election signs should remain unchanged, or eliminated in order to prevent a potential legal challenge on the grounds that the village might have violated freedom of speech.

The local law imposes time limits when signs, strictly those advocating for a candidate, can be posted after an election — no later than 20 days, or in the case of a primary election, no later than 10 days for the candidates who lost.

"Political signs are among the most protected speech that you could possibly have," village Attorney Matt Rogers said at Monday's meeting. But, he added, there are a lot of "back-and-forth discussions" about how long campaign signs can stay up after Election Day, with reasons cited of aesthetics or so as to not confuse the voter.

If the local law is challenged, however, Rogers said, the village might lose.

Councilman Paul Vagianos said he is good with that, and with the way the law is written.

"If it is challenged, and we go to court and we lose, then we lose," Vagianos said. "I am a huge free speech advocate. Nonetheless, I think that keeping up political signs year-round, ad infinitum... I am not good with that."

Deputy Mayor Pamela Perron said she is also willing to stick with the law as written, and that she believes there is a "valid government interest" to not have signs ad infinitum.

The village has an interest, Vagianos said, in "keeping the landscape clear," so, he added, he does not have a problem preserving the law as is.

Mayor Susan Knudsen, who said she thought there should not be a time limit, stated that this issue came up in 2016 when signs were shoved into planters and destroyed flowers downtown. She later said she agreed with two residents who spoke during the public comment period after the initial discussion among council members.

"I would be happy to remove (the law)," Knudsen said. "I don't understand why we would do a constitutional challenge, and I don't understand why the sign that says 'I like potatoes' is OK, but (an election sign) is not."

One of the residents, Boyd Loving, said that he was "shocked" that council members would want to take a constitutional challenge on the signs.

"I am stumped, absolutely stumped, that you would make that decision," Loving said. "What is the big deal in Ridgewood that we want to get rid of these signs and then pay legal fees if someone wants to take us to court?"

Another resident said she does not understand why she could have a sign in her yard that says she supports marijuana in schools but not a particular candidate.

"If I want to put up a sign for a former president, why can't I do that? I don't understand why," she added.

In response to the residents, Vagianos posed the question of whether the village should be subject to doing whatever is requested of them or sued on the grounds of, in order to save legal fees.

"If someone wants to challenge (the regulation), then that is absolutely their right," Vagianos said. "If a court orders us to allow them to keep it up forever, then we will follow that court order, but until that time, I'm good with this."