Campaign signs laws should be equally applied, not tilted in favor of McKay

To the Editor:

I am not a political activist, not even close. My wife and I are newcomers to St.
Mary’s due to the recent relocation of NAVAIR into the county. I think we represent the “new
block” of voters in St. Mary’s county.
That said, I wish to voice my opinion on what I perceive as a distinct bias by the county
government in favor of Tommy McKay (R), who is running for state senate against Roy Dyson
(D). The issue deals with temporary political signs. I have spent several hours reviewing the St.
Mary’s County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, a 378 page document. This is the “County
Law” as it relates to road-side signs. I refer to Chapter 52 (Non-conforming Uses, Structures and
Signs) and Chapter 65 (Signs).
Recently, a supporter of Senator Dyson was ordered (under penalty of $200/day fine) to take
down a large political sign in excess of 32 square feet, (viewable from Northbound RT235) that
had been erected on their private property. When the Department of Land Use & Growth
Management (GWWIN) found in favor of McKay, another Dyson supporter complained to the
board about the McKay sign at his headquarters in California (the old Bingo building next to
McDonald’s). This sign appeared to violate the same paragraph of the ordinance, as well as
another ordinance paragraph. While the sign in question was clearly in violation of these two
paragraphs, the GWWIN ruled in favor of the McKay sign citing another paragraph
(Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Signs; Nonconforming Signs). What GWWIN failed to
take into account with this ruling was paragraph 52.3: Nonconforming Uses, Alterations and
Enlargements (“…A nonconforming use may not be changed to any other use….”). The use of
this building obviously changed from a bingo parlor to that of McKay’s political headquarters.
Now, and finally to my point, I drive RT235 between Hollywood and Waldorf every day. There
are over 50 locations on both sides of the roadway where the political signs of several candidates
are in violation of the sign ordinance. These include: signs positioned so that they create
obstructions at intersections; signs located in the road right-of-way, more than three signs on any
property; signs within 10 feet of the curb; and, political signs in excess of 32 square feet.
The most visible signs in violation are the double height signs of McKay’s, where he has colocated
signs for political allies (i.e., Ehrlich, Steele) on the same sign posts. A single McKay
sign could be interpreted as “vote for me, I’m Tommy McKay”. Whereas a double or triple sign
could be interpreted as “I am Tommy McKay, I am a REPUBLICAN and I support the
REPUBLICAN agenda, so vote for me”. The message the candidate intends is modified when
he adds another sign above or below his own, so it should be considered the same political sign
and is in violation of the 32 square feet political sign ordinance. Why are these illegal signs been
allowed to remain? Either enforce the ordinances equally, or do away with them altogether.
Ted Harwood,
Hollywood, MD