Town of Edgewood Violates Its Own Sign Ordinance
by John Weckerle
In its effort to create a dramatic display of sign-removal authority, the Town of Edgewood appears to have violated at least one provision of its own sign ordinance.
In a partial response to a New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act request for information, Ms. Estefanie Muller stated that “only one violation has been issued,” – this despite the fact that dozens of signs were on display at the July 4, 2008 Town Council. In an odd twist, the violation provided in the response was not for any of the signs present at that meeting, or for an illegally placed sign, but for a billboard that had been vandalized. That violation was issued last December.
Section 10.B of the Edgewood sign ordinance states: “The first time a sign or signs are removed from public property, the person, business, or service identified on the sign will be given a notice of violation.” The ordinance provides the Town with no discretion in that matter. In effect, by not issuing the violations, the Town may have denied the sign owners due process, since the owners would have had no way of knowing that their signs had been removed by the Town (as opposed to having been stolen).
While a final response to the NMIPRA request is not due until close of business today, the preliminary response seems to raise several issues regarding the process by which signs are confiscated. The response suggests strongly that there are no measurements or photographs taken to document the Town’s position that signs are illegally placed, leaving the Town with no real evidence should sign owners contest a violation. Perhaps more seriously, Ms. Muller indicated that the Town has no policies or procedures of any kind for the handling, inventory, and storage of evidence confiscated by any Town official. This would appear to be a major potential problem that could hamper the efforts of the Edgewood Police Department.
The NMIPRA request also included recommendations submitted to the Town by the sign ordinance committee appointed by the Town Council. Ms. Muller responded: “The current council has not appointed a committee,” and provided a copy of draft recommendations provided by the committee in January. This would appear to suggest that the Town staff considers the committee’s charter to be no longer in effect; however, it is not clear that the Council has dissolved the committee, nor that its term has expired.