SECTION 1. Section 1940.4 is added to the Civil Code, to read: 1940.4. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), a landlord shall not prohibit a tenant from posting or displaying political signs relating to any of the following: (1) An election or legislative vote, including an election of a candidate to public office. (2) The initiative, referendum, or recall process. (3) Issues that are before a public commission, public board, or elected local body for a vote. (b) Political signs may be posted or displayed in the window or on the door of the premises leased by the tenant in a multifamily dwelling, or from the yard, window, door, balcony, or outside wall of the premises leased by a tenant of a single-family dwelling. (c) A landlord may prohibit a tenant from posting or displaying political signs in the following circumstances: (1) The political sign is more than six square feet in size. (2) The posting or displaying would violate a local, state, or federal law. (3) The posting or displaying would violate a lawful provision in a common interest development governing a document that satisfies the criteria of Section 1353.6. (d) A tenant shall post and remove political signs in compliance with the time limits set by the ordinance for the jurisdiction where the premises are located. A tenant shall be solely responsible for any violation of a local ordinance. If no local ordinance exists or if the local ordinance does not include a time limit for posting and removing political signs on private property, the landlord may establish a reasonable time period for the posting and removal of political signs. A reasonable time period for this purpose shall begin at least 90 days prior to the date of the election or vote to which the sign relates and end at least 15 days following the date of the election or vote.
Addendum: I posted this because I was informed of a friend whose landlord insisted that he take a sign off his rented lawn – based on the landlord’s conflicting opinion about the issue. He doesn’t want to fight with his landlord about it. I’m not going to get into the details because I don’t want this to come back on him. Tenants are vulnerable even when the law is in their favor on the books.
Meanwhile, I think progressives have a fighting chance to take the majority of the City Council in Eureka. But they’re up against conservative incumbents in a year where progressives, particularly young progressives, tend to sit out elections. It will all be about GOTV. But Eureka really needs Kim Bergel and Natalie Arroyo in there to shake things up, starting with the suicide-inspiring landscapes of the 101 entries into town which remind me of rust belt sprawl towns rather than a community which should be exploiting its natural beauty to promote tourism as a supplement to the local economy.
It’s hard running against incumbents though, who tend to win the push in close elections.
There was a story on NPR this morning with a local Measure P supporter almost lamenting the lack of Monsanto money against their measure. Almost as if they feel insulted!
I always like to note interesting combinations of signs on lawns. Around Eureka you will find some lawns mixed – Bergel and Albin signs for instance. On H street I noticed a lawn which had Newman and Albin signs, along with a Yes on P sign. Further up H there’s a Yes on R sign with both as well. On Harrison I saw two homes with Arroyo and Newman signs. On Henderson there is a lawn with Bergel and Arroyo, and then strangely, one with both an Arroyo and Albin sign – either a politically diverse marriage (as my wife and I are split on Measure P), two family residence, or perhaps someone who just lets anybody put signs on his/her lawn.
I understand that there’s a hot Supervisor race in the 3rd District (Johnny Pinches retiring) in Mendocino County between Holly Madrigal and Jim Woodhouse (do I have the names right?). Would love it if people down there would post thoughts and predictions.
Re Prop Z – I was in Fortuna yesterday for my son’s last soccer game of the season (he plays for the Eel River Rapids who fought the Mad River Impact to a tie yesterday – great game). I did see some of those “no new taxes,” invoking the “Read my lips” slogan of President George Bush, Sr. – and maybe not entirely unintentionally since local conservatives are giving at least passive support for Measure Z, and obviously Measure V, which is Fortuna’s equivalent, probably has them going nuts.
Should I feel guilty for not supporting Measure Z? Well, of all the Supervisors, only Mark is really hustling for it. Maybe the others are as well, and I just haven’t seen their stuff. But if they’re holding back, expecting liberals to push their constituency so they can tightrope between the constituents who want better Sheriff protection and those who don’t want to pay more taxes – it’s really not my problem. If they’re lukewarm, then why should I be excited enough about the issue that I’m willing to saddle poor people with additional sales taxes? At least the conservatives in Eureka are pushing Q hard – this will probably be the only time some of these lawns contain signs advocating a tax increase. If the Board majority really wants Z to pass, then they shouldn’t try to have it both ways. You’re either for the tax increase, or you’re against it. It’s a straight up yes or no vote,.