Mashburn Sign Statement

Keith Mashburn's sign attached to a fence on LA and Stearns

Everyone loves political sign season! Right? No? Maybe it’s just me. At any rate, I’m having a good time spotting the signs as they appear throughout the city. For those that believe challengers have trouble getting their signs posted, drive around town and tell me if you can spot the signs for Mike Judge and Keith Mashburn. I sure have.

You may notice a couple of Keith Mashburn signs have disappeared. It turns out that a couple of small yard signs for Mashburn at the corner of Madera and Los Angeles Avenue were unauthorized, resulting in this statement from the Candidate:

I was notified by a representative of Casden Properties, Daren Embry, that they had removed my signs from their property at the corner of L.A. Ave. and Madera.  I did not place the signs there and had not requested permission to place any there.  Casden Properties made it very clear they were only supporting the incumbents for city council.  I regret any harm that this has caused Casden Properties and can assure them that it is my policy to only place signs where I have permission.

When I asked Keith how the signs appeared there, he indicated that some of his supporters may have put them in place without his knowledge, answering me as follows:

I can only guess that to be the case. I have no idea how they got out so early but I don’t think someone printed up Mashburn signs and placed them.

They were official Keith Mashburn signs, so if it wasn’t his campaign, it may have actually been an over-zealous supporter. Either way, the matter appears to have been settled. Thanks to Keith for providing the statement.

11 thoughts on “Mashburn Sign Statement

  1. I’ve noticed several Keith Mashburn signs posted on wire fencing instead of on stakes like all other candidates (an example of this would be on the corner of Stearns and L.A.) I thought candidates weren’t allowed to do this. Isn’t it against city ordinance?


  2. It behooves the candidates to know the rules and to share that information with their supporters BEFORE they post signs. Mr. Mashburn can deny responsibility, but it’s his name on the signs.


  3. Holy Cow people, lighten up will you. Sojka has one on Park District Property. Can we all take a breather and relax.

    This is why we need to go back to the 60 day rule so the rest of us don’t have to sit around and listen to all the whining.

    There are signs getting ripped up, disappearing on all sides. It’s a bunch of fringe people doing things on their own.


  4. I guess I just don’t get the signs. The signs only say the name, does not give any information. It is like if people see the name enough then they will vote for the person, rather than seeing what the person stands for.

    Since the City Council banned signs for residents, I would think that they should stick to what they voted for, but I guess that is too much to expect.

    The signs are also not cheap and someone is paying for them.


  5. Rance,

    Internet etiquette going back before Al Gore invented the internet is that “typing in all caps” is considered yelling. Not sure if you knew.


  6. Brian,

    If I give you the picture and the legal description of the property how are you going to talk about it on your blog?

    I think that it’s placement looks to be a fair mistake. There can be natural assumption to think it is okay, but Title clearly shows the property is owned by the Park District. Do I think Steve is pulling a fast one on us or he is up to something underhanded? Heck no.

    Let’s say for all fairness. should he not get the same “HE DISTRIBUTES SIGNS, SO HE IS RESPONSIBLE IF SOMEONE PLACES ONE ILLEGALLY”?

    I am trying to make a point here. I really don’t care about the signs and I think all the whining between all the operatives is pretty childish.

    I think that you and Mike exacerbate it when you don’t correct some of the stuff you put out. All the non-sense about Huber not knowing the sign ordinance caught the opposition off guard when they realized Huber figured out that the signs could be 12 square feet. Look who didn’t know the ordinance. 😉

    Why not get on with the real business of the election and lets get the candidates out to talk about the issues, instead of building Pirates of the Caribbean in the Arroyo or whether the trees look cool next to the rail road.


  7. I was talking about the lost pet and garage sale signs which are banned and which a city employee drives around taking the signs down in a city vehicle, no doubt using fuel paid for by the city.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s