License Email Print Increase Decrease Reset Comments

2010 signage measures ‘a concern’: BCCLA
Planned changes won’t allow officials to infringe on free-speech rights, RMOW councillor says

The free-speech rights of Whistlerites and their guests don’t appear to be threatened by a legislative change aimed at giving municipal officials the power to remove illegal signs and graffiti quickly during the 2010 Olympics and Paralympics, a municipal councillor said this week.

However, an official with the B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) said that if the enforcement change here is similar to what’s being sought in Vancouver, he fears it would give officials the right to enter someone’s property and remove signage deemed objectionable — perhaps including anything expressing anti-Games sentiments.

The pending legislation, an amendment to the provincial Municipal Enabling and Validating Act (MEVA), “will provide the municipalities of Vancouver, Richmond and Whistler with temporary enforcement powers to enable them to swiftly remove illegal signs and graffiti during the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games,” government officials wrote in a brief statement about the measure, contained in an omnibus bylaw called Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, on Wednesday (Oct. 7).

David Eby, BCCLA executive director, on Thursday (Oct. 8) told The Question that the MEVA change, and an accompanying amendment to the Vancouver Charter, would allow authorities to waive a provision requiring them to give 30 days’ notice to property owners and allow them to enter the property on short notice to remove the offending sign or graffiti.

In a statement, BCCLA officials said the amendments would allow authorities to give 24 hours’ notice before entering a property to remove or cover up signs.

While the government statement said the proposed MEVA change “does not change the existing scope and of authority to regulate signs and graffiti,” Eby said the measures proposed by the city did not spell out what could be considered objectionable. That, he said, leaves those decisions up to the discretion of authorities.

“It’s definitely a concern,” Eby said. “There are two parts of what the city was asking for. The first part was to increase the maximum fine to $10,000, and giving the city limited notice to go onto private property to remove illegal signs, and to swiftly remove, without notice, illegal graffiti. I don’t know if that’s the exact wording of the amendment that the Province is putting forward, but that was the city’s request.

“If I put up a sign that says ‘2010 sucks,’ and I’m in one of those special zones near the venues, the city could enter my house and remove it.”

Councillor Eckhard Zeidler on Thursday said he hadn’t seen the proposed legislation, but based on the description from the provincial government, it appears it wouldn’t change the description of what’s illegal under Whistler’s municipal signage bylaw — just the enforcement regime.

“I don’t anticipate that the municipality would contemplate anything that would infringe on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and if there is an infringement in our current bylaws, I’m unaware of it,” Zeidler said.

“If there is a grey area, it will be on the discretion portion. However, what’s regarded as objectionable will be contained in our existing bylaws.”

The RMOW sign bylaw, adopted in 1987, does not deal with the content of signs, but does give municipal officials the authority to regulate their type, size and location. Among the permanent signs expressly prohibited are “bunting, flags (other than national, provincial and municipal flags), balloons or other gas-filled inflatable devices,” and “any sign that obstructs any part of a doorway, window, or balcony.” Permitted temporary signs include those for elections, special events, real-estate openings and contractors, as long as they meet restrictions on their size and location.

There is no specific mention in the bylaw of political signs not associated with elections. However, Section 3, Permitted and Prohibited Signs, begins with, “Signs that are not expressly permitted in this Bylaw are prohibited in the Municipality.”

Zeidler and BBCLA officials said the change to the enforcement regime would have to be approved by individual municipal councils. Zeidler, though, said he didn’t know whether a full public hearing would be necessary during the adoption process.

Attempts to reach Shannon Story, municipal director of corporate services, to clarify that point were unsuccessful.

License Email Print Increase Decrease Reset Comments

Comments

Be the first to comment!