I just happened to spot these signs on my way to and from lunch today and I'm sure there are many others like it around Salisbury.
When you see a sign between the curb and the sidewalk, you can bet that 99% of the time it is within the City of Salisbury right-of-way. In other words it is on public property. In most cases the City will own the roadway up to the back of the sidewalk. Makes sense right, since the City is responsible for the sidewalk? You'll also notice in the third picture there is a fence. You can be 99% sure that when that property owner built that fence he made sure it was on his property and didn't extend into the right-of-way. But there is a sign, just behind the curb and in front of the sidewalk.
You might be saying "Well, maybe they didn't know?"
Gary Comegys works for the State Highway Admin. It is his job to know. Clearly, let me repeat, clearly he would know where the right-of-way is in a situation like this.
You might also be saying "Hey, what's the big deal? It's just a sign."
The big deal is that a man who's job it is to know where a right-of-way is, has purposely placed his signs in it. He has a responsibility to tell his campaigners where they can a cannot place signs and for him to over look this constitutes not only bad judgement but a violation of the law. If Gary Comegys is willing to knowingly break the law, or at least look the other way during this campaign, what do you think he will be willing to do behind closed doors if he is to be elected?
I wonder what would happen if someone were to call the Jim Caldwell at the City Public Works Department (410-548-3170) and tell them about Gary Comegys' signs? I can only speculate that, not only could they not be bother by it, they wouldn't even tell you who to call to resolve it.
Now, I also wonder what would happen if you told them it was a Jim Ireton sign?
In most cases the city right-of-way stops at the face of curb. The property is privately owned but there is customarily a 10' City of Salisbury Easement for utility & maintenance purposes. This easement usually falls at the back of the sidewalk.
ReplyDeleteDoes it matter?!
ReplyDeleteJoe plastered signs of his picks during the past election (locally and nationally) and it did NOTHING to help!
the propery owner may own the land all the way up to the street, with the city having a right of way for the sidewalk; if this is not the case, why do you have to remove snow on the sidewalk in front of your house
ReplyDeleteExcellent Post!
ReplyDeleteThanks. I finally got sick of looking them.
ReplyDeleteanonymous 1:23, YOU'RE KIDDING ME, RIGHT?
ReplyDeleteThe fact of the matter is, you did NOT read the Post. Mr. Comegys knows full and well that this is illegal. Again, it's his job to know. It's your job to maintain the sidewalk in front of your property. If someone slips and falls and you hadn't maintained it, it's also your responsibility and gets paid off by your Insurance Company. That doesn't mean you own it. The City is offering to pay 1/2 of your curbing and sidewalks right now if you want them replaced too.
Two Sentz......outstanding! The biggest point you made was that if he is willing to break the law during the campaign, what will he be willing to do once elected. It would be more of the same! Elected officials must be held accountable. The best time to start is.........immediately.
ReplyDeleteSounds like bubba's competitors need to place their signs right next to his.
ReplyDeleteWhen the city comes to pick up one sign and not the other, there is a perfect case of violating one's first amendment right to freedom of speech. Those a good settlements!
Guys & gals the signs are not in the right-of-way if it is in the city limits. City road standard 200.41 (40' Major Collector Street which this appears to be)clearly states the ROW line is at the face of curb with a 10' utility easement to the back of sidewalk.
ReplyDeletestrange that Muir Boda isnt associated with anyone but he is associated with the church where the sign is located. makes you go mmmmmmmm.........
ReplyDeleteA quick note on the city offering to pay half. I have a friend that had 3 sections of concrete removed/replaced and his bill was $1200 From the city. They offered to pay half. The problem here is they doubled the actual cost first. A concrete contractor would have done the same job for $600.
ReplyDeleteComegys not only doesn't care, as there are no real penalties for illegal campaign sign display, he's giving that stupid "I'm getting over on you and there's nothing you can do about it" grin of his.
ReplyDeleteWhat a piece of work.
99% is that a real statistic or did you just pull that out of yjin air?
ReplyDeleteGary can be a Real Idot. Not my Choice to pick Him for next mayor. But WHO is best choice?
ReplyDeleteThe first two pictures are from E. Main St. around Devage's. Tedh, check out the "Glen Haven" plat (ref 142/600). The lots on that street are 127' deep and the R.O.W. is at least 60'. Also, the signs are in front of unoccupied buildings...even more suspicious.
ReplyDeleteThe third pic is from Eastern Shore Dr. I haven't looked that up yet but I doubt I need to.
2:18, Yjin air.
ReplyDeleteBusiness
ReplyDeleteBusiness
Church
that is where signs are posted
Are we boycotting business' with Gary signs or what?
The 3rd is is front of the old Moores Lumber eastern Shore Drive.
ReplyDeleteThe city cuts the grass in this area between the sidewalk and curb.
I looked at the plat you are referring to and it is from 1926 when this land was in Wicomico County. Since then this land has been annexed into the city and re-subdivided many times. Even according to the plat it clearly shows E. Main Street as a 40' ROW with 13' area between the ROW and the property line. Even the city road std# 200.61 (60' arterial street) shows a 9.5' grass plot with a 5' sidewalk with the easement at the back of curb. Being as this was annexed into the city the annexation agreement would certainly bring have brought this to the current city standards. I just want this to accurate before we point fingers.
ReplyDeletetedh- WRONG
ReplyDeleteYou better get it straight, bubba.
1:21-- WRONG!
ReplyDeleteThe City has decreed that the adjacent owner has to remove the snow from the public sidewalk (and any grass in the cracks, too).
Welcome to Barrieland!
Mr./Ms. 2:22:
ReplyDeleteBob Caldwell -- for the reasons see his website at
electbobcaldwell.com
Ted survieys for a living, I think hes right.
ReplyDeleteDoes it matter Joe Lets talk about issues.
ReplyDeleteI got the plat and I endorse nobody at this point I just hate bad information. I found a plat/deed (734/307)showing east main street as a 66' wide ROW with the curb to curb dimension as 46'. This indeed shows the city owns that area of land. With that said I still stick to the fact that we need to find out all the info before we pointing fingers. My information on the city street ROW's and easements was correct in fact but this is one of those old odd ball areas.
ReplyDeleteTwo Sentz,
ReplyDeleteI understand full well the point of your post. How can anyone including yourself be so sure that the candidate himself placed signs at the locations pictured. How can you be sure that a supporter did not place these signs. Using a little common sense here tell says that no candidate whether it be local, state or national candidate can control completely where their signs are placed.
anonymous 2:59, look again, it's NOT my Post.
ReplyDeleteanonymous 3:02, let's just see how fast that candidate gets over to the property mentioned and removes them. How's that?
ReplyDeletetedh-
ReplyDeleteThanks for checking and correcting. FYI -- there are lots of atypical circumstances around town.
BTW -- are you a PLS (a Maryland nonsensical notion not found in most otherb states) or full fledged surveyor?
Are some of you people for real? Unless you can demostrate that this guy Comegys personally implanted those signs into the ground at their present locations, isn't it possible that a volunteer of the candidate or a citizen supporting said candidate could have placed the signs? Some of you people are petty little ankle biters.
ReplyDeleteI know for a fact that the Ireton campaign tells people to keep them out of the R.O.W. and if you are unsure where that is, basic rule of thumb would be place them behind the telephone poles.
ReplyDeleteTedh, thanks for confirming that at least two of these signs are indeed in the R.O.W.
No problem as I just want correct info and keep Joe's site legit. I do now have to write off my research time from my time sheet but it is worth it to have the proper information reported.
ReplyDeleteI think Mr. Comegys sjhould have a talk with his friends and Staff about the language they are attempting to use on comments on this Blog.
ReplyDeleteGary, I have been very fair and I have been a man of my word. If I continue to get such nasty comments I will change my tune if you cannot get control of your people.
It doesn't have to be like this and I have too much to do than babysit people with their foul language.
"isn't it possible that a volunteer of the candidate or a citizen supporting said candidate could have placed the signs?"
ReplyDeleteEither way, are they or are they not placed illegally?
Tedh, check out plat 3/79 for Eastern Shore Drive, parcel 20 and tell me if you think that one also would be in the R/W. I say yes.
ReplyDeleteWhat I can tell you looking a little further into it then just the ROW plats you referenced is looks like it is 60' curb to curb with a 90'ROW. You can make your own call but as I referenced earlier a road of this size would have a 15' easement but it would seem that it was dedicated instead.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeletethe propery owner may own the land all the way up to the street, with the city having a right of way for the sidewalk; if this is not the case, why do you have to remove snow on the sidewalk in front of your house
1:21 PM
If this is the case then why does the code compliance officers take other elected officials signs down and dispose of them. I questioned one of the city code enforcement officers that ride around in the little white trucks and they said you would have to talk to Mr. Stevenson about that. They went on to say that they were told not to touch any of Councilman Comegys signs, period!!
I would like to add that the granting of the ROW to the back of the sidewalk is not the normal scenario. To be safe, if everyone kept the signs behind the sidewalk everything would be legitimate in most cases.
ReplyDeleteThere were two of bubba's signs in front of the gas station in that area of Main Steet that day and now they are gone. Tells me the gas station owner doesn't support bubba and that bubba didn't get permission to place the signs anywhere on Main Street.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThe 3rd is is front of the old Moores Lumber eastern Shore Drive.
The city cuts the grass in this area between the sidewalk and curb.
2:42 PM
The city also cut down and then replaced the trees in the same area so don't tell me it isn't a public right of way.
tedh said...
ReplyDeleteI looked at the plat you are referring to and it is from 1926 when this land was in Wicomico County. Since then this land has been annexed into the city and re-subdivided many times. Even according to the plat it clearly shows E. Main Street as a 40' ROW with 13' area between the ROW and the property line. Even the city road std# 200.61 (60' arterial street) shows a 9.5' grass plot with a 5' sidewalk with the easement at the back of curb. Being as this was annexed into the city the annexation agreement would certainly bring have brought this to the current city standards. I just want this to accurate before we point fingers.
2:44 PM
Sounds like we have a Bubba supporter here.
David said...
ReplyDeleteTwo Sentz,
I understand full well the point of your post. How can anyone including yourself be so sure that the candidate himself placed signs at the locations pictured. How can you be sure that a supporter did not place these signs. Using a little common sense here tell says that no candidate whether it be local, state or national candidate can control completely where their signs are placed.
3:02 PM
They have been there for over 2 weeks now. Bubba knows they are there so he is RESPONSIBLE!!
I thought it was very representative of the candidate that the first picture was a sign in front of a closed business. Business people and homeowners will be leaving this city in droves with this guy as mayor.
ReplyDeleteWonder if he cheats on his taxes like the way he has cheated the taxpayers? hmmmm
ReplyDeleteUsing State vehicle and gasoline for personal use, sleeping on the job or I might say a non working job. The way he milks the system all he needs now is welfare and an independence card.
anon 4:39 PM: You need to read all of the posts.
ReplyDeleteI have read all of the posts and if you are saying you don't support a candidate at this time you are either very ignorant or you are a bubba supporter. Get over it!
ReplyDeletei have not decided yet. i am leaning one way, but no decision. i definitely am not a bubba supporter. i am not very ignorant. can you give me more options in your rebuttal???
ReplyDelete