By Nicole Montesano • Staff Writer • 

Springer cleared in sign case

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $2. Subscribe online by clicking here.

Already a subscriber, please .

Comments

Denise

Sounds like typical Springer. Arrogant, foolish, childish behavior.

tagup

less ego and agendas.....and more service to county residents is a good thing....Mr Olson is a pleasant change....

braces

If I read this story correctly, DOJ determined that Springer did indeed pull up the signs in a clear attempt to take them down. IMO just because the DOJ felt they couldn't prove enough to criminally nail him doesn't mean that "Springer cleared in sign case". That's teenage thinking that if you don't get found guilty then you didn't do anything wrong...........

Lulu

Maybe God suggested Springer remove the signs, since it appears they're on a first-name basis.

Bizzyditchaz

Happy he's been unseated.

yamhillbilly2

All of Alan's praying didn't work....we still found out what a sleeze he is.

Shorty

Springer--he did it. What an idiot

Sheeple No More

A common thief. Your tax dollars not at work.

Shasta

Comical! In his campaign videos he and his supporters championed the characterization of his "integrity"....including commissioner Starrett. Any change of heart now commish?
Interesting 'take' on him...maybe they just don't know the meaning of what "integrity" is? Or maybe just poor judgment of character. Either way, the citizens of the county didn't buy into his phony "conservative values" for a second term. Glad he's gone.

Joel2828

Creepy to think that a grown man who is running for public office would do something like that. Glad he lost. Had I known about it I would never have voted for him.

Seabiscuit

So we have a very unpopular fellow who not so illegally removed signs of his opponent, Olsen, who had signs illegally "placed on railroad property or on the highway right of way” and “neither entity gave permission for the signs to be placed there.”

The outrage at Springer is deserved. Where is the outrage at the person who actually did break the law?

sbagwell

Olson did not have signs placed illegally. A supporter of his decided to place signs on what he thought was his own property and apparently ended up getting them a few feet onto right of way.
In fact, the exact lines are so unclear that investigators could not determine whether they were on railroad right of way or state highway right of way. The landowner did not seek permission from either entity for a very simple reason — he thought he was placing them within the confines of his own property.
It seems to me the simple response from the opposition might have been to call the state Elections Division and report the apparent violation. Another approach might have been to contact the landowner and suggest the signs might have been wrongly placed.
I don't see how it dictates slipping up in the dead of night to uproot them. Are a couple of signs a few feet outside a private property line really that much of an issue in the big scheme of things?
I think the commenters are correct in seeing this as a character issue.
Steve

tagup

The third option would be focus on something that might actually have an impact on the election....the decision to remove the signs in the first place is so petty and near- sighted that it's comical......

Seabiscuit

"Springer did not have signs placed illegally. A supporter of his decided to place signs on what he thought was his own property and apparently ended up getting them a few feet onto right of way." So just exactly why would Springer be in trouble for removing his own signs? Although the article pretty clearly indicates it was Olson signs that were removed and Steve just made a typo.

We have quite a few acres Steve. I can guarantee you that when I place a sign, Political or "No Trespassing" or a fence post for that matter, I know where the farm and ranch property lines are.

"investigators could not determine whether they were on railroad right of way or state highway right of way." But, apparently they were able to pretty clearly determine they were not on the agents private property.

I'm just pointing out that there is a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black here. It's not like the county is going to fall apart over this critical matter.

Sheeple No More

Thanks, Steve Bagwell. You have it correct. Talk to anyone in Carlton. Springer made an ass of himself at the City trying to place illegally sized (4x8') in the right of way and they were removed by the property owners (permission was not sought). He then bullied the City Manager, or tried to, and made several lame attempts to buoy up the sizes by placing two signs side by side at the main intersection...the end result is, he removed opponents signs several times in several locations. Let's just be glad he's gone, shall we? Merriam-Webster defines a bully as:

Definition of bully
plural bullies
1
a : a blustering, browbeating person; especially : one who is habitually cruel, insulting, or threatening to others who are weaker, smaller, or in some way vulnerable tormented by the neighborhood bully
b : pimp
2
: a hired ruffian
3
archaic
a : sweetheart
b : a fine chap

You pick! lol

yamhillbilly2

Apparently a couple of the folks putting up their anti trail bilboard didn't know property or right of way lines when a sign was placed in our area north of Carlton. It really limited the view to make a safe turn out on to 47. Luckily all it took was a couple of phone calls, and the signs got moved back and lowered, nobody had to sneak out in the dead of night and destroy them and Alan wasn't on his midnight crusades to take care of the placement of the signs for us.

Web Design & Web Development by LVSYS