Right after the primary, as expected, the invisible and illusive candidate, Council member Rhenda Strub appeard to begin her campaign to win relection. While I'm guessing that she may have some signs at the actual homes of real people who vote, I've seen countless signs only in public rights-of-way.
Sure, she may be allowed to do that, as is everyone, but two important questions are raised: 1) Isn't that a lazy way of "campaigning" which indicates a paucity of support from actual Olympia citizens?, and, 2) isn't it also a kind of sign graffiti and visual pollution?
I notice virtually every other candidate has the vast majority of their signs at actual Olympia homes representing the views of the homeowner. In Rhenda's case it appears merely the fruits of a late night sign drop wherever "public" property exists which can hold a sign.
Is this representative of her views on public space? On her actual suuport?
Comments
Or it is a wise use of signage
I too noticed Rhenda's signs popping up on the shoulders of high volume corridors and thought, well that's kinda lazy but as I drove around I realized that Rhenda's sign coordinator has accomplished in one day what her opponent has struggled to do in four months.
It is an example of a campaign making wise use of resources. I would not read anything more into it.
Too optimistic?
Well, that's a pretty genorous perspective. Even if that is an example of a "wise use of campaign resources", it's a bad use of natural resources and it is, more likely than not indicative of her very low level of actual support.
Russ Lehman
Just in case the opportunity presents itself
I still have a Russ Lehman sign in my garage.
Glenn Blackmon
Dear Now-Finds-Himself-Blocked
You don't see your comment here because of a pointed personal attack. It was your third one. Bye.
Please folks, play the ball, not the player.
I think it's a perfectly justifiable, temporary use
of public space. Local elections are not a bad use of these particular "natural resources."