By Robert J. Hansen
Woodland, CA – Campaign signs for Yolo County District Attorney candidate Cynthia Rodriguez have been torn down or have come up missing and have needed to be replaced according to Dillan Horton, Campaign Chair for the Rodriguez campaign.
Rodriguez is challenging 16-year incumbent District Attorney Jeff Reisig who is running for a fifth term.
Horton says most of the campaign’s signs are put on public property and that more than ten have needed to be replaced.
“It’s happened from the beginning,” Horton said. “People will take down our signs to 
put up a Jeff sign. Signs that are very clearly on public property.”
Horton said this happened in 2018 when Dean Johansson ran against Reisig, so his team was prepared for this kind of behavior.
“We’re prepared for when a sign comes down to put it back up the next day,” Horton said.
He said they have people keeping an eye on the signs to let the campaign know when something happens to their signs.
The Rodriguez campaign also received a message from Brenda Lopes that it had to remove one of its signs because the property owner wanted it gone.
“You need to remove your sign, you do not have permission to have it on this property,” Lopes told the campaign.
The sign in question is on the corner of Road 98 and Route 16 north of Woodland, is on private property.
Lopes said she was asked by the property owner to contact the campaign.
Other signs supporting the Rodriguez campaign that was paid for by Citizens for a Progressive West Sacramento (CPWS), have also been torn down.
Timothy Blank the California Crop Improvement Association was recorded cutting down a sign paid for by CPWS.
Maria Grijalva, the founder of CPWS, told Blank repeatedly to put her property down which he did only after cutting it off the posts.
Blank said he had permission to remove the sign from the property owner but was unable to prove that with a written statement.
The owner, who preferred to remain unnamed approved the other campaign signs on his property but Grijalva did not ask or have permission.
Grijalva has had nine signs stolen or destroyed and filed a report with the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office.
Francisco Lopez-Montano, an administrator for Citizens for a Progressive West Sacramento, said this is a new low for the Reisig campaign.
“We will not tolerate intimidation, coercion, nor illegal campaign tactics,” Lopez-Montano said via Facebook. “This is why we need someone like Cynthia Rodriguez for Yolo County District Attorney.”
Grijalva said some businesses that had a sign in support of Rodriguez have been intimidated to take them down.
“It’s getting crazy out here,” Grijalva said.
One business owner received a phone call and was told ‘not to start problems’ by erecting an opponent’s because the District Attorney has been in power for 16 years according to Grijalva.
“Unfortunately, the owner felt intimidated and my sign had to come down,” Grijalva said.
Jeff Reisig’s campaign could not be reached for comment.
I read the article but no proof was provided that Reisig’s campaign has anything to do with the signs missing.
Also why the title “Attorney General Has Assigned Deputy to Investigate Yolo DA’s Race” where (unless I missed it) there’s no mention of this in the article?
Reasonable points… first is ‘circumstantial/speculative… second is “spot on”…
I’ll make a third… public street/road is NOT ‘public property’, except for street/roadway, public utility purposes… it was not acquired for ‘political sign purposes’… in fact, political signage, potentially detracting from signage related to roadway purposes, can be reasonably deemed a public hazard, abatable by the public agency responsible for the roadway… this whole concept has been ‘under debate’ for years, and the judicial rulings have been ‘all over the road’… it is arguably, “unsettled law”…
Bill is spot on re: signage. Will say, though, that in Davis city limits, signage is routinely removed (by both sides of issues) from public right of ways and easements.
Shoppers exercising their choices where to patronize?
They were intimidated to take down signs in a phone call by whom?
Good question RG, it doesn’t say in the article.
Perhaps… reminds me of when you could only buy beer/wine/alcohol two places in Davis… Jake’s and L&M Liquor… both almost exactly 3 mi. from UCD (the law, then)… during the grape boycott, L&M was boycotted by the liberals, for selling Gallo wine… the ‘red-necks’ boycotted Jake’s (they would not carry Gallo wines)… they were across the street (Chiles Road) from each other… same owner at the time… he actually encouraged both sides (surreptitiously) in their efforts… big profits… the boycotters made a point of frequenting the ‘other’ business… this was in late ’60’s, early ’70’s…
“Horton says most of the campaign’s signs are put on public property and that more than ten have needed to be replaced.”
I’m not a lawyer but I don’t think its legal to put up signs on public property.
“The man claimed to have had permission to remove the sign from the property owner but was unable to prove that with a written statement.”
“I don’t got to show you no stinking badges!”
B. Travers in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.
What, the man dares to do what he may have been asked to without a written statement on his person?
Oh my…
Did the campaign show the man a written statement showing they had the right to post that sign there?
And Horton hears/sees a “who”? (T. Geisel)
I was on my way home from work when I saw Maria and a young man putting up the sign on a growers property across the street from Denny’s. Before I detached the Cynthia Rodriguez sign, I took a picture of its placement and texted the picture to the property owner and confirmed with the owner that it was on his property. We spoke on the phone, and he said they had put up a sign at the same location earlier, and he had it taken down and he filed a report with the sheriff’s office. Since the owner was not in the area at the time, I offered to take the sign down myself and he was agreeable to that. I went back to the location and started to cut the zip ties. That is when Maria Grijalva and a young man drove up, got out of their truck, and started accosting me. I tried to explain to her that she was on private property and did not have permission to put the sign there, but she just kept yelling “Please get your hands off my private property” and telling me to learn to respect private property. There was no way to reason with these people. I left the sign there, and they put it back up. The next morning the property owner took down the sign and posted a couple ‘no trespassing’ signs.
Does an easement really make property public property? I believe the easement on a portion of property is limited to the purpose of the easement. Otherwise we could easily have a bike path between Davis and Woodland built with ease, for example.
Simple answer is no… but the courts have been all over the place… you are technically/legally correct that there are limits, as to purpose… courts have found, for example, that billboards can be banned from public R/W… so, they are generally on private property, immediately adjacent.
Interesting… the most logical place would be the UPRR R/W (train tracks)… thing is, that is technically ‘private property’, but most railroad R/W were “gifts” from the Federal Gov’t. That is a long and interesting story in itself… “public lands”, gifted to private entities… but that would be ‘off-topic’…
Oh god, sign wars… zzzzzz…..
9 points, Craig… like the CC political signs along Covell, years ago, where one campaign would place their signs to obscure those of their opponent… a different Greenwald had some involvement in that “drama”… but you are correct… ultimately, it was a ‘snoozer’… one of those ‘dreams’ one tends to forget…
Based upon both the article and comments, I take it that the deputy’s purpose will be to investigate whether or not the sign-posters had a right to post signs in particular locations in the first place?
Yeah, that’s it. You can count on it…LOL
Why that title and then no follow up as to why the investigation in the article?
I noticed that as well, but I neglected to point that out.
Because the Vanguard hired an “investigative” reporter to “specifically cover” the District Attorney race in Yolo County? Yep, sure is a catchy headline, and lots of comments, so the reporter (or whoever wrote that headline) sure earned their pay! Yawn…..
“Don’t say DA”?
When making a police report, Maria Grijalva was told by a Yolo Deputy that they have received an email from the AG assigning the deputy AG.
A public records request was made for that email.
I pulled up 11 Reisig signs in a drunken stupor last night, and threw them in Putah Creek off the A Street bridge. So all is right and in balance with the world.
Next!