Petition filed to force reconsideration of sign ordinance
Recent changes to the city’s sign ordinance face reconsideration with the filing of a petition Friday bearing, according to Boston publicist Karen Schwartzman, 15,581 signatures.
The law is inactive until it’s been looked at again — by the City Council or, failing that, by voters. The law decided rules on how companies could brand their office space in the city’s business districts.
The number of signatures is far more than needed to force reconsideration. The Election Commission’s executive director, Tanya Ford, said Friday that the petition was in hand and the signatures are being checked. The commission has five days to confirm all the signatures are those of registered city voters.
More names may come in, Schwartzman said in a press release.
“Although we have already collected far more signatures than the law requires, we will continue to gather signatures through Sunday to ensure that everyone’s voice is heard,” she said. “We hope the councillors will appreciate the depth and breadth of opposition among Cambridge voters.”
From her release:
Appearing this morning at the office of the Cambridge Election Commission, Save Our Skyline delivered petitions holding 15,581 signatures. Under the State law governing citizen petitions, signatures of 12% of registered voters in Cambridge (approximately 7,500) must be delivered within 20 days of a law’s passage. Save Our Skyline collected the signatures delivered today in just 16 days.
The council, which voted for the ordinance 6-3 late last month, will get the petition as soon as the names are certified, City Clerk Margaret Drury said. The councillors can rescind or modify the law, or ignore the petition, in which case voters will decide it in about a year during the next city election.
Actually, here’s what the law (MGL c. 43, sec. 42) says if sufficient signatures have been submitted: “the city council . . . shall immediately reconsider such measure or part thereof; and if such measure or part thereof is not entirely rescinded within twenty days after the date of the certificate of the registrars, the city clerk shall submit the same, by the method herein provided, to a vote of the registered voters of the city, either at the next regular city election not less than thirty days after said twentieth day, or at a special election which the city council may, in its discretion, call for the purpose, and such measure or part thereof shall forthwith become null and void unless a majority of the registered voters voting on the same at such election vote in favor thereof.”
Consider the unpalatable choices. First, they could repeal it, thereby calling their manhood into question but most likely making all the brouhaha go away. Second, they could call a special election, which would cost a bunch of money and would most likely result in a vote to repeal. Or, third, they could have this on the same ballot as their own election next year. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch. Monday’s city council meeting, or, more likely, the following Monday’s city council meeting, should be worth seeing.