OXFORD — The Oxford Town Commissioners attempted to vote on restarting a committee that would examine which signs and how many are allowed to stay up in town — including on private property – but failed after a commissioner declined to second the motion.
The committee was formed last year, but the pandemic derailed its progress. Oxford announced earlier this month that it would reform the committee, and Cheryl Lewis, the town clerk, indicated they should vote on it at the commissioner’s March 23 meeting.
But Jimmy Jaramillo, the youngest town commissioner, did not second the motion, forcing the council to retry the vote at its next meeting in April.
“I do want to discuss this further,†he said. “I want some time to think on it, obviously. I addressed my concerns last time around and that’s where I am right now.â€
At the March 9 meeting, when the commissioners discussed restarting the committee, Jaramillo said he would “have a hard time going on someone’s property and saying, ‘This sign needs to go.’â€
The committee would examine all signs in town — from realtor signs to the Talbot Boys markers on either side of the political divide — in an effort to “reduce and improve†existing signage in Oxford on public and private property, according to last year’s meeting notes.
Oxford’s move is controversial because the commissioners cited the large number of Talbot Boys signs in town, which are common across Talbot County and indicative of the fight to either remove the statue from the Easton courthouse lawn or keep it there. The signs on private property across the Mid-Shore read either “Preserve Talbot History†or “Move Talbot’s Confederate Monument.â€
After the town announced the move, some residents came out against the proposal, suggesting it was government censorship. And a spokesperson for the “Move Talbot’s Confederate Monument’ sign said the town was trying to silence the county’s conversation on the statue.
Gordon Fronk, a commissioner, urged Jaramillo to reconsider and not be hesitant on the vote.
If the sign is not obscene or full of hate speach than a property owner should be able to exercise his/ her First Amendment rights on a political issue on his/own property. If instead the property owner were to get on a soap box on his/her own property and express views verbally what right does a government body have to silence that person?
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.
(1) comment
If the sign is not obscene or full of hate speach than a property owner should be able to exercise his/ her First Amendment rights on a political issue on his/own property. If instead the property owner were to get on a soap box on his/her own property and express views verbally what right does a government body have to silence that person?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.