I'm not fed up with taxes. But I'm clearly fed with with "Fed Up With Taxes", who've placed more signs on our median strips than any candidate. If one sign doesn't convince me, will 101 signs have more of an impact?

It's the season of sign pollution -- in which each candidate or issue group tries to display more signs than their rivals. Frankly, I view it as an insult to our intelligence. Instead of spending their limited campaign funds to produce issue-oriented material, that might give us reasons to vote for them, they bombard us with a name, and perhaps a slogan, but nothing more.

Of course, I don't like taxes, and the slogan "Fed Up With Taxes" does resonate with me. Like most of you, I've imaged the pleasure of paying less. But the agenda of that group represents a horribly regressive program. I guess their hope is that I'll count the signs and not read further to find out how they will turn my discontent into constructive or destructive action.

Tom Allen! Yes, I know he's running for office, and I could write here about why he's my choice. But what I see on the street is simply: Tom Allen, Tom Allen, Tom Allen, Tom Allen, Tom Allen, Tom Allen ... I could repeat this story for each candidate -- those I would support, and those I vigorously oppose.

I respect and admire Tom Allen -- what he does, and what he says. He's out there with a solid and well informed message and program, and a track record that I admire, and lots of integrity. He shouldn't need hundreds of signs with just his name ... but, evidently, in our electoral climate he does. Just like mud season, we have sign season. Frankly, I found more comfort seeing him at the vigil for James Angelo. Tom Allen wasn't on the program, and wouldn't grab headlines. But clearly he wanted to be there. That was a statement that mattered much more than his name recognition signs.

Can't the candidates show respect for us, address us with meaningful dialog, and leave our city looking like a city instead of a convention hall?

E-mail this entry to a friend