A blight on our landscape - or an important part of democracy?
This is the question the Tauranga City Council has grappled with this week as it discussed what many consider is the unsightly mess created by roadside election signs.
In the six weeks leading up to the city council elections, signs of
all shapes, sizes and quality from candidates trying to win votes litter both private and public property.
Some signs are a distraction. Some are lame. And some are catchy, like Cr Rick Curach's Pick Rick campaign.
As reported in today's paper, the council is proposing to ban them on public property.
The Mayor is vocal on this, saying Tauranga looks a shambles compared with Rotorua, which does not allow signs on public land.
Councillors voted 8-3 in favour of the ban, with Crs Curach, Murray Guy and Catherine Stewart opposing.
The public will be given a month to have its say. A final decision is expected in August.
There is a strong argument these signs are ugly and we can all remember them being blown down in the wind, vandalised or de-faced in previous elections.
But they are necessary and this move is anti-democratic.
It is crucial that local body elections are open to anyone who wants to be a candidate and is legally eligible.
But the truth is not all candidates have the same political power or money to bankroll their campaign as others, like the Mayor, do.
They will be disadvantaged and a number of councillors have expressed their concern over this.
The Mayor disagrees, saying there is nothing fair about an election. This is a rather high-and-mighty response.
Councillors have only been given two options in this matter - signs or no signs.
A better way to deal with it would have been a compromise. Why not put some rules around election signs on public land, such as limiting the number candidates can have in total and reducing the time they are up from six weeks to four?
Yes, they can be ugly and distracting, but election signs are an essential part of democracy - and provide a bit of colour and fun.
