POLITICS ASIDE:Signs of election are still lacking

It’s hard to tell when something you write will strike a chord.

Last week’s column on political signs — really, the seeming lack of them this year in Newport-Mesa — didn’t strike me as one that would get much response. I’d figured the one before, on absentee voting, would have.

You just never know. I got e-mails. My phone rang. I even answered it occasionally.

I mainly heard from people who told me places I ought to go to see all the signs I’m missing. Among those spots was Balboa Island, which I got to over the weekend (and where I saw a council candidate walking).

Hate to say it, but I still didn’t think there are that many signs. There were a few more Yes on Measure X signs on the island than in other spots, but otherwise I still think the number of signs is lower.

And there’s a reason why. Well, maybe two.

The first is the less intriguing: Signs that are posted illegally on public land in Newport Beach, at least, are being removed by city staff members, as was reported in a Tuesday story in the Pilot. I was told that the numbers staff members are pulling down are “truly amazing.” So the real story of this year might not be the lack of political signs, but the quickness and efficiency that Newport staff members are showing in getting out onto medians and other spots in their quest to remove the signs.

The second reason is the stuff of great politics, was also touched on in the Tuesday Pilot story and seems to be getting more interesting as this week goes on: theft.

In Newport, both sides of the measures V and X campaigns are complaining of lost or vandalized signs. I’ve seen e-mail exchanges that mention white or black pick-ups carting away signs in the early hours of the morning. And, of course, there are basic complaints about people sticking signs on top of others, obscuring one from public view.

What to make of such reports? To an extent, it is basic politics — and part of the reason why campaigns cost so much. Certainly, such shenanigans are nearly impossible to police, and I am skeptical that the candidates or folks at the top of the various political camps are involved. But volunteers or others with tangential connection — sure, why not? It seems harmless enough, after all. It isn’t as if one side is bugging the other’s headquarters.

Sadly, though, at this point the stealing-campaign-signs story is the hottest of the last week of the election. Surely there has to be something bigger coming along, and it has to be either today or Friday when all the media are fully staffed. Check the next two days’ worth of papers to see.

CLEARING UP A POLICE MATTER

There will be something else to check in a few of the coming Pilots — from what I hear Friday and Monday’s. On those days will be the repeat of a political ad that ran in Wednesday’s paper (on Page A5) from the Newport Beach Police Employees Assn.

No surprise there would be repeat ads, of course, but I guess there will be a subtle difference. The one that ran Wednesday highlighted that “Newport Beach Police” support certain council candidates and asked for a yes vote on Measure V (the general plan update) and a no on Measure X (the Greenlight II initiative).

Perhaps a few readers took note of that. The department supporting any candidates would be unusual, of course.

It also wouldn’t be true.

I received an e-mail in the morning from association President Eric Peterson that said, in part: “The advertisement was misleading in the fact that it did not clearly indicate that it was from the [employees association] alone. The Newport Beach Police Employees Assn. represents the sworn officers below the rank of sergeant and the civilian members of the department. The NBPD has a management association comprised of members who hold the rank of sergeant or higher. They do not have a PAC committee, and they do not belong to our PAC. The advertisement was submitted by the NBPEA PAC committee and in no way reflects the opinions of the management association or the department at large.”

I later heard from Police Sgt. Bill Hartford, the department’s public information officer, on the same topic. He, too, stressed that the department as a whole is not supporting these positions.

I’ve heard the next ads will reflect things better. Given that advertising and editorial are separate, I don’t have any of the details. So, I’ll be checking out the ad just like all the readers.