I was just sent this question. Thoughts? I know that some towns have repealed bylaw restrictions on political signs, especially those that limit them to a specific time period.
Can a landlord disallow election signs?
We are renting a house, and the landlord has emphasized the portion of the lease indicating no display of signs of any kind. He probably is taking exception to my Elizabeth Warren decal in the front window.
Even though the lease prohibits signs, it seems a violation of civil liberties to prevent tenants from putting up yard signs in an election.
Please share widely!
Kate, this is not legal advice etc., and I don’t have a definitive answer, but I think this tenant may have a point. I think the key is whether the window is part of the leased premises over which the lease gives the tenant rights. There’s a case called Nyer v. Munoz-Mendoza, 385 Mass. 184 (1982), that the tenant may want to look at. A yard sign would be another question, since in a typical lease of an apartment the yard is not part of the leased premises.
Good luck!
…though if he is discriminating on the basis of one’s politics the tenant may have a case.
I hate to sound discouraging, but having the law on your side will not help much. An unhappy landlord who chooses to harass you can make your life miserable. It sounds to me as though you either need to (a) find a new place to live or (b) find another place or way to express your political views.
The presence or lack of a Warren sign on this one piece of property is going to have about zero effect on the election. Rather than fight this battle, better to put the time and energy into an effort that will yield results for the election.
.
when we agree completely.
or make new rules. Government does it all the time. Here is a good example:
Longmeadow has decide to enforce a law that is going to take away a life’s pleasure from many of the citizens.
From Masslive.com
Would you like a helmet with that?
Honestly, who are these people. I know I’m off topic by comparing to government rules and regs, but really, the resulting loss of individuality is the same and landlords are basically the government of the apartment building. I hated renting.
The lease is a contract between the landlord and the tenant. If the tenant signed the lease, they agreed to the terms in the contract which included the no signs clause. If it wasn’t in the lease, they might have grounds to complain, but they chose to sign the lease which included these terms just as a lease might forbid tenants from smoking on the premises.
Quite simply, it’s not permissible to sign away certain rights.
If your lease told you you couldn’t use the water faucets on premises, for example, that would be considered null and void.
Or if the lease said you can’t be black, or Asian, or what have you. There are limits to what a contract can hold you to. It might be that dictating free speech of the tenant is one of those. That’d be for precedent and judges to decide, not the landlord, should the tenant decide to pursue it.
All of the other things noted: no using the water, no racial minorities, etc.– all prohibited by statute. Prohibition on signs? No prohibition by statute, and no other plausible source of prohibition.
So, I am relatively confident that the landlord can not only insist that you keep your decals off her windows, but could also cause you to display a giant Brown for Senate/Romney for President sign by putting it on the front lawn.
Is she going to get a judgment evicting you for the violation? Probably not one that kicks you out soon. But she can take all kinds of legal– and some illegal but hard to fight– actions that will make life miserable, as ably noted below. To the extent the landlord is smart enough to avoid illegal things, your argument to the housing court that the landlord is unfairly (but legally) retaliating against you because you failed to do what you agreed to do will not be a winning strategy.
if it is one of those standard Greater Boston Real Estate Board leases. GBREB has had grossly illegal provisions in their standard leases before.
As a practical matter there is not much the landlord can do except try to evict you. I say “try to” because evictions are slow and expensive for a landlord. And unless the landlord can show that he/she is suffering some real damage from the sign the eviction case will not go very far.
I met the Munoz-Mendoza of the case above and in my eyes she is a hero. She was fighting a condo conversion and put up a sign on her door informing prospective buyers that she would not move. The SJC upheld her right to do that, saying that this was a first amendment right.
The sacrifices of tenants like Munoz-Mendoza won’t mean very much if tenants are advised by liberals to just shut up or move away.
I’m not sure how much actual experience you’ve had with an actual pissed-off landlord. It isn’t that I disagree with any of the comments here about the legal aspects — it is, instead, that a landlord who wants to make your day-to-day life miserable can readily do so.
Virtually every rental situation includes give-and-take accommodations that aren’t in the lease and that both sides agree to. Extra storage space or a freezer in the basement, or an extra car in the driveway, or an outdoor table and chairs or a grill on the back patio, or clothes lines on the back porch — that sort of thing. When the landlord/tenant relationship turns hostile, all those things go away.
There is an entirely different set of actions that a landlord can take that are illegal, and that each need to be pursued violation by violation. While it’s true that a tenant may ultimately prevail on each, the road to getting there can be very expensive and a real hassle.
It seems to me that there are some battles worth fighting — heat in the winter, adequate water, safe and adequate egress, that sort of thing. I certainly include the condo conversion issue you cite in that category.
In my view, a sign for Elizabeth Warren (or any other candidate) does not meet that standard.
Even if the landlord doesn’t mind, a neighbor might object. And quick, peel of those bumper stickers, a pissed-off motorist can make your life pretty miserable.
We at BMG should stick to opinions that don’t piss of anybody, not landlords or employers or neighbors or passers by. We should keep our opinions to ourselves because we might need a favor someday.
Tom, you asked what kind of experience I had with pissed of landlords. I had plenty. My landlord was Gerald Schuster, an extremely powerful and influential landlord–the Cllintons stayed at his house when they visited Boston. And vindictive–just ask Phil Johnston, who he tried to have fired.
But there was nothing he could do to me. The one time he tried, he lost. And I did a lot more than put up a sign.
My advice to the kate is to just ignore the landlord’s request. If the landlord persists, call up Scott Brown’s office and tell them that you want to give them a chance to rectify the situation before you call the newspapers
The question wasn’t about neighbors, or bumper stickers, or pissing off employers, or passers by. What’s next, calling me a coward and challenging me to a duel?
The question was about a tenant whose landlord rather pointedly reminded them of a clause in a lease they signed prohibiting signs. I offered one answer, you apparently disagree. You apparently chose to fight a related battle and won — congratulations, I’m happy for you.
It doesn’t hurt to have multiple perspectives offered in response to the same question. It also doesn’t hurt to show a little civility from time to time.
If you’ve got a car and the place has a driveway, you might want to plaster a nice big Warren sticker on the bumper after taking down a window sign.
Elizabeth Warren curtains or blinds.
If it’s a house and you mow the lawn, you could mow the Obama “O” into the front lawn like the groundskeepers at Fenway mow socks into the lawn.
Put a clothesline in the front yard, and hang your Democrat (and union!) T-shirts so their messages face the street.
Get a mannequin, throw on a blond wig, some glasses, and a black blouse and pastel jacket with a Vote4EW button on it, and stand it up in the front yard.
P.S. If you know of *any* towns which still have political sign restrictions, do tell.
Not an outright prohibition, but in Lexington, “accessory” signs are limited to two per property, each no more than four square feet in area, and placed at least 10 feet from the edge of the road. Additionally, any signs that are associated with an event, such as an election or yard sale, must be removed within seven days after the event.
I have seen all of these violated at one time or another without any ramifications.
I suspect that anybody in Lexington could put any sized sign on their property which isn’t a public danger and leave it there year round without any ramifications because, well, the First Amendment trumps the Lexington Town Meeting.
Are political signs included in “accessory” — meaning that I couldn’t have an Obama, Warren, and [Congressman] signs all on my lawn according to the [IMO unconstitutional] bylaw? I don’t know how wide the easements are in Lexington [sidewalks, tree lawns, etc], but again, for political signs, if they’re not a public endangerment issue, I would think that you could put them anywhere on your property, in any number, of any size.
Hi Everyone,
As the tenant in question, I thought I should weigh in on this and clarify my reasons for asking the question. Although I find it irritating that I can’t show support for my political candidate of choice by putting a sign on the lawn that I pay to use (and mow), I understand that is not worth my effort to go the mat over one little yard sign.
My situation did make me wonder about this restriction, and whether it is affecting the civil liberties of all tenants during a federal election — rights that perhaps cannot be signed away in any agreement.
California, my former home state, has legislation that addresses this problem. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/30/BAEU1LBVC8.DTL) SB337 recognizes this as a free speech issue.
Consider this: an article I read recently in the Boston Globe indicated that home ownership for younger people (24-35) has declined considerably. Home ownership is also less likely among minority voters. In fact, many middle class voters who were previously home owners are now renting. One could argue that a hefty chunk of the Democratic base rents.
If yard signs matter at all, then this is important. Well-heeled Republicans are free to blanket the landscape with support for their candidates, while many Democrats are prohibited from expressing their views in this way.
Seems wrong to me…
I appreciate folks weighing in on this. Deasrowe is a constituent and she asked me for information. I thought that I could rely on BMG to get some opinions. Kate
Thank you, Kate, for posting the question and following up on this. I appreciate it!
Yard Signs don’t win elections. If you want to help your candidate win the election you should volunteer your time on the campaign. You could volunteer for phone banks or go door to door canvassing.
You can find and sign up for events here http://action.elizabethwarren.com/ You can find something to do that will fit into your schedule.
If you don’t have time, donate money to the campaign. If you don’t have time or money, talk to your friends and neighbors and make sure they know the truth about both candidates in the race and let then know who you are voting for and why.
Take off election day as a vacation day if you can and help out that day.
I totally agree that the election will not be won or lost because of yard signs. I also agree with your suggestions regarding contributing in meaningful ways, many of which I am already doing.
I have to believe that signs have some impact, or else why would campaigns spend precious resources having them printed and distributed?
I also believe that this is a civil liberties issue. Apparently, the people of California do also. I would like to see legislation similar to SB337 introduced here in Massachusetts. For now, I will carry on with my efforts to support my candidate.