Haydain Neale, 1970–2009
Transit City and Transit Cities
Peeve Patrol
Newsstand: November 23, 2009
The Making of a Medley
This afternoon, Torontoist noticed two enormous Jane Pitfield signs on the lawn of a Gloucester Street apartment building, which got us to thinking: does a landlord have a right to erect election signs at a building shared by many who might disagree with the endorsement?
The City of Toronto and the Canada Elections Act have very clear rules about the right to place election signs, especially on public property. On private property, any candidate may place a sign with the consent of the owner or occupant, and it's illegal for anyone to remove the sign without the consent of the respective candidate, owner or occupant.
Any tenant is allowed under law to put-up election signs "on the premises to which the lease relates," but a landlord can set reasonable restrictions on the size of the posters. Where things become murky is if a tenant wishes to affix a sign to a common shared area like a porch. Windows may also be considered a common element and therefore a sign technically may not be affixed to it, but a City representative told us that a resident reserves the right to allow a sign to be displayed in a window as to be visible from the outside.
In a condominium, the Board of Directors often lawfully restrict placement of any election signs on common-shared elements like windows or balconies for purely aesthetic reasons, including signs in windows that disrupt the consistent appearance of the exterior. In a rented premises, the landlord is allowed to remove any sign he or she wishes if the sign is posted in a common area, even if all tenants want the sign displayed.
Now the sticky part: what if a landlord erects election signs for a candidate whom a tenant detests? Basically, it depends on how the lease is worded and how "the premises" are defined in the lease. Usually a lease will deliver "possession of the premise" when the term starts, which might indicate the inclusion of a front lawn, for example. However, if the landlord maintains the lawn or exterior, they could retain the right to remove a tenant's sign and erect their own, especially if the definition of the premise is ambiguous in the lease agreement.
Obviously, it really becomes a problem when personal beliefs become involved. Should a tenant be forced to live with a sign that promotes a candidate known for sexist, racist or anti-semitic views? What about something as simple as a disagreement over public transit?
Ethicist Randy Cohen, author of The Good, the Bad and the Difference: How to Tell Right From Wrong in Everyday Situations, addressed a New York Times reader's similar issue. The reader had a landlord who posted signs supporting an anti-gay proposition she strongly opposed. Cohen believes that the landlord was creating a false impression that his signs proclaimed his tenant's views, and that even adding his name to the sign would not be justification enough to erect the signs.
The bottom line is what's in your lease. If it's ambiguous, you may not have a case and you may have to live with the landlord's politics. Nevertheless, a landlord's potential right to raise a placard of his or her choice doesn't make the action any more ethical.
Torontoist agrees with Cohen that a landlord should never impose personal political views on a tenant, even if legally entitled to. In the case of 70 Gloucester, it certainly is possible that every single resident is voting for Pitfield. But we doubt it.
UPDATE (November 6): The sign lay in pieces this morning. That's illegal, folks.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Signs like these may not be a bad thing: they warn potential tenants. Why would you want a landlord who supported Pitfield for mayor, anyway?
Man, just rip the sign out of the lawn in the middle of the night, throw it in a dumpster and be done with it.
Two federal elections ago, I was living on Palmerston Gardens in a basement apartment and my landlord (who lived upstairs) put two signs on his front lawn: One for the NDP, and one for the Green Party. He had a trickier situation to deal with than a mere tenant with different political views: His wife supported a different political party than he did. That's why they put up signs for both, which I thought was nice...
He was a great landlord and actually asked me if I wanted to put up a third sign, since I was part of the household. Being a non-partisan sort of fellow, I declined the kind offer.
If someone catches you ripping-out the sign and tossing it, they can charge you. In the case mentioned from the New York Times reader, she kept removing the sign and one immediately reappeard. Even if you didn't get caught pulling-out the placard, another one is bound to get installed right away.
JKelly: A husband and wife are legally entitled to each put up a sign supporting their respective candidate, but each may not legally remove any sign of the other!
It may also be noted that Pitfield wants to ban the homeless from panhandling and sleeping in the street, so maybe landlords are charmed that the homeless will therefore obviously be getting new rental apartments. I'm being slightly facetious, since Pitfield and Miller also both want more public housing (duh) but both the City and the Province have been woefully ineffective on this since the eighties.
Would this be an issue if the signs were for Miller?
Would the Torontoist still maintain their "a landlord should never impose personal political views on a tenant, even if legally entitled to" policy?
That sign makes me want to go to McDonalds.
Fen,
I've thought that too.
What's that about? Is she trying to associate herself with loveable childhood icon Rondald? Does she think she should be our Mayor McCheese? Does that make Stephen LeDrew Grimace? Who's Miller? A fry guy? Or is he Ronald.
My mind is blowing right now.
All she needs to do is change the 'M' in Mayor to the golden arches and she's good to go.
David: I would absolutely have posted it about Miller's sign if it had been the one on the lawn of the apartment building (by the way, the Pitfield signs are almost neck-high, which isn't clear from the photo). I actually walked around all afternoon to try and find a Miller sign at a rental apartment downtown, but I didn't see any of his signs anywhere.
That being said, I'm a blogger, not a journalist, and though I try very hard to be fair depending on the context (i.e. the car sharing article), I have the luxury to offer my opinion. The great thing about blogs is that readers can also counter it.
This post had nothing to do with Pitfield other than the fact that it was her sign. If I wanted to talk about how she too often embarrasses herself with an unsophisticated campaign strategy and unsavvy behaviour, that could be addressed in, perhaps, the comments.
SNAP! Oh, yes he did. ;-)
Shocking that Torontoist is following in Spacing's practice of hosting posts that counsel criminal activity. You should be aware that keeping that comment up puts Torontoist's local editors at risk, as counselling is illegal in Canada, and the removal of election signs is a VERY serious crime.
I'd be surprised if you could find many landlords who support Miller. They're not exactly a constituency known for their leftism. But then Torontoist readers aren't know for their attachment to reality.
It's a shame that the candidates are so horrible this year. Jane's an embarrassment, from her campaign, stands, and even graphic design. But she's not miller. Hard choice!
I'd advise removing illegal posts and not encouraging the commission of crimes against democracy, but since when does the Left care about that?
Read the story again and you'll discover that it clearly states that removing signs is illegal.
If a sign is erected without permission on property entitled to the owner or occupant, the owner/occupant does have the right to remove the sign because the actual installation of the sign would be illegal in the first place.
Illegal posts? Crimes against democracy? Please.
how bout defacing the sign? that's got potential for humour AND illegality.
Question:
Don't the tenants count as occupants?According to the rep I spoke to at City Hall, the landlord tends to have the upper hand. Again, if it's clear in the lease which part of the property a tenant is renting or is obligated to maintain, the tenant could be able to grant legal permission.
Under the Canada Elections Act, everyone has the right to display a sign supporting a candidacy somewhere on property they occupy, even if it's only within their own dwelling. Infringing on someone else's right to have a sign is illegal. One member of a married couple can't take down the other's sign, but both are entitled to display different signs.
If a lease in a multi-dwelling apartment block allows for equal sharing of common-use areas, technically all residents should be allowed to have their chosen candidate place a sign. The landlord might be able to object and remove the signs though if s/he is the controller of the common elements. It would likely be an issue that would have do be arbitrated.
All this being said, I've been surprised to see such a dearth of election signs downtown this time around. It feels like many people just aren't into it this year, but maybe the complacency has to do with the likelihood of Miller getting re-elected, and that it's not such a drastic change in leadership this time, whatever the outcome.
The hope is that Torontonians will really check-in on their local candidates, since the ability to co-operate with the mayor and between other councillors (with vision) is way more important than who sits in the mayor's chair.
God I hate these signs - irrespective of party or slant.
What exactly is the point of them? The only possible ones I can think of are:
1) You think someone actually cares who you intend to vote for - in which case you have a misguided sense of importance.
2) You think that you can swing other people's votes through visual peer pressure. Perhaps you can, but anyone who decides who they're going to vote for because of the quantity/power of the candidate's signs should have their right to vote removed.
To the owners of these signs - thanks for visually polluting the community with your political views.
One year past when Jane was running for city councillor a boyfriend of her daughter went all through Leaside with his friends collecting every single Pitfield sign, and then he re-planted them on her front lawn. Not impressed then--so I doubt she needs any more sign slander now.
Though yes, what's wrong with having a sign for each party/person supported? That's what happens at my house during federal times..
When I walked by it this morning, the sign had been vandalized (see new pic posted at the end of the article).
I'd like to see some stats from any study about the effectiveness of these signs, because I tend to agree with LBB; they seem pretty useless, an throwback to past generations, and something thats just done because it's ALWAYS been done, and because politics is very concerned with "keeping up with the jones'"
Like a lot of very simple advertising, the point of lawn signs is merely to reinforce name-brand recognition. If you see enough of a candidates' name, you're more likely to remember them. F'r instance, I can remember several 'fringe' candidates' names because they've been mentioned more than once - Kevin Clarke, Rod Muir, Stephen LeDrew - but none of the others. Also, if it comes down to it, a lot of people don't really follow debates and read up on what candidates' platforms are. They rely upon word-of-mouth and seeing a sign with a neighbours' preferred candidate along the way to the polling station can determine their vote.
I can't for the life of me remember which trustee I liked for my Ward. I hope to remember to do some research so that this doesn't happen to me.
But all-in-all, campaign visual pollution is irritating. Try working on a campus where it happens every year. Ugh.