Earlier, you may have read how, during the 2012 campaign, District 46 Republican candidates led by Jim Kasper and Jim Roers decided to violate city sign ordinances.
At that time, they turned Roers Inc. trailers into illegal billboards and placed them throughout the district. It took quite an effort by the City of Fargo to get them removed, but eventually and begrudgingly, Jim Roers removed the illegal trailer billboards.
In the 2013 session, Kasper’s committee amended a bill, to eliminate all city and county regulation of political signage. Kasper’s committee misrepresented court rulings and wiped out all ND political subdivision sign laws so he could get his way back home.
This year, the Roers/Kasper/Roers-Jones (RKR-J) campaign decided to ignore rules once again. A large portion of Rose Creek agreed to covenants limiting the size and number of signs that may be placed, and prohibiting placement in certain locations (like perimeter fences). What is interesting is that, when notified, residents who had agreed to RKR-J signs asked RKR-J to remove them after the new covenants were approved. The RKR-J campaign is apparently contending that Rose Creek Covenants are a violation of state law (Kasper’s law from 2013).
Democratic-NPL candidates Sinner, Diederich, & Fisher decided early on to: 1) respect Fargo’s sign ordinances regardless of Kasper’s law to overrule them; and 2) respect all development association covenants. That’s why you won’t see 4’X8′ or 3’X5′ signs hanging on fences throughout the district from their campaign. Nor will our candidates place signs against the wishes of development subdivisions when notified.
We anticipated the RKR-J campaign would take advantage to Kasper’s sign law, but we didn’t think they would thumb their nose at development association covenants.
Here’s why. On April 16, 2013, when they were considering Kasper’s sign law in Conference Committee, the topic of covenants was raised.
Representative Koppelman responded to Senator Carolyn Nelson’s question about covenants, “Covenants are also not ordinances. They are contracts. Unless otherwise prohibited by state law, you can contract and agree not to do this. ” Kasper then agrees saying, ‘”The long and short of it is that it appears that you may do a covenant with a subdivision, but this bill does not address that. This deals with the political entities. ” Senator Nelson: So if they want a clutter free subdivision they can? Representative Kasper: It appears so.
So here are our questions.
- Why can’t the District 46 Campaign team of Roers/Kasper/Roers-Jones simply respect Fargo’s sign ordinances?
- Why can’t the District 46 Campaign team of Roers/Kasper/Roers-Jones simply respect the covenants of a large portion of Rose Creek?
- Why does the District 46 Campaign team of Roers/Kasper/Roers-Jones insist on ignoring the authority of Covenants (contracts) when in 2013, even Jim Kasper agreed Covenants could restrict signage?
Why should District 46 voters elect a team that ignores local rules, but wants to go to Bismarck to make them for everyone else?