Campaign season in Aberdeen has lingered well past Nov. 7, as yard signs, phone banks and door-to-door volunteers have crossed the city in preparation for the Dec. 5 vote on the annexation of 524 acres.
Red-and-white “Stop Annexation” signs, and large green “Save the Wetlands” signs have propagated on lawns in and around the city long after the general election passed: A citywide referendum next Tuesday will decide if the city?s borders will expand to include the 150-acre Wetlands Golf Course and the prime-for-development land around it.
Ever since the annexation?s opponents collected enough petition signatures in August to bring the annexation to a vote, both the opponents and the developers have been pushing their side of the argument through direct-mail fliers, phone calls and yard signs.
“We?ve been out canvassing neighborhoods every week for several weeks now,” said annexation opponent Bobbie Randles. The group also has been sending out mailers and making phone calls to city residents, she said.
They?ve been matched by developer Sam Smedley, who has hired a marketing firm and campaign manager Rommel Crabtree. Crabtree has overseen his own door-to-door campaigning and mailers, including an article about the Smedley family?s history and investment in the golf course ? which Smedley says he cannot afford to keep open without the added returns from creating residential development.
“The No. 1 issue for most people ? the ones who are concerned citizens but not anti-growth types … they want that golf course to stay,” Crabtree said.
The referendum campaign has even had endorsements: The Harford County Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 128 has come out in favor of the annexation because of the extra tax revenue that could fund new police vehicles and better retirement benefits, said Lodge President Joseph Bray. Of course, no campaign would be complete without arguments over missteps and minutiae: Officials and opponents both say the developer?s “Save the Wetlands” signs are larger than city regulations allow.
City regulations limit signs to 6 square feet, and at least four of the developer?s signs were approximately 4 by 8 feet, said City Manager Doug Miller. Miller said he would be meeting with City Attorney Elwood Stark Today to discuss what the city can do about the signs, as they could be considered forms of protected political speech.
“If you had a ?for sale? sign in violation, we could pull it down right away with no problem, … but we have to be doubly sure we?re not interfering with political free speech,” Miller said.
The “stop annexation” signs also may be in violation of city sign regulations, because many have been posted for longer than the 30 days allowed by law, said Councilwoman Ruth Elliott.
