On the Controversy in Hanson; Or, Why I Am Voting for the Harris-Walz Ticket Tomorrow
[Readers, I have almost entirely left national politics out of this publication thus far; however, in this momentous election season, a local controversy has erupted in Hanson that to me seems to encapsulate and crystalize a number of the issues before us in the Presidential Election on Tuesday, November 5th. While I respect the opinions of those who take a different view, I will be voting for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in defense of the constitutional order. I wish everyone a safe and calm Election Day. — Ben Cronin.]
(HANSON) — I have largely kept this publication focused on local and regional issues; this has been a conscious decision, inasmuch as I think the introduction of party differences to local questions tends to obscure rather than illuminate. There are times, however, when national questions find themselves expressed in local events, and that was the case last month in the Town of Hanson, when an unnamed citizen, in contravention of the Town’s lawful regulations, began to project an advertisement for Donald Trump onto the Town-owned water tower at 228 High Street.
This controversy seems to me to in many respects a microcosm of the larger 2024 Election. I am particularly struck by the following: in Hanson, as elsewhere, one faction has demonstrated that it views the law, at best, as secondary to its purposes; and viewed less charitably, this faction takes the view that the law does not bind it — without ever convincingly demonstrating that this is so, but proceeding rather by bald assertion. We find here a local echo of the larger contempt for the law and the constitutional order evinced by the candidate whose sign was illegally projected onto the Town of Hanson’s Water Tower.
The Projection and the Hanson Sign Regulations
As reported in a number of local, regional, and national press outlets, on October 11th, the Town of Hanson became aware that an individual inhabitant of the Town was projecting a Trump 2024 campaign sign onto the municipal water tower located at 228 High Street in Hanson.
On October 12th, Hanson Town Administrator Lisa Green issued the following statement, via John Guilfoil Public Relations:
“On Friday, Oct. 11, the Town of Hanson became aware that a resident was projecting the image of a political sign from their property onto the Town of Hanson municipal water tower at 228 High St. This misleads the public into believing that this activity is sanctioned by or condoned by the Town,” said Town Administrator Green.
“As a governmental entity, the Town of Hanson does not endorse candidates for any office from any political party, nor does the Town allow political signs to be displayed on municipal property,” she said.
“The Town of Hanson’s Sign Regulations, which can be viewed here, contain language that makes this individual’s actions a violation of Town bylaws. The Town is working on a Cease and Desist order to present to the resident,” said Administrator Green.
“The Town intends to issue the maximum fine of $100 per day until the activity is discontinued,” she said.
Administrator Green continued:
“Highway Department employees have positioned a spotlight to shine on the water tower to dim the projection. Further measures are being considered at this time,” she said.
“This individual’s actions have the potential to cost a significant amount of taxpayer dollars, including attorney fees, overtime to pay Highway Department workers to turn the spotlight on and off each day, and the potential for having to rent or purchase stronger lighting equipment. The $100 per day fine will likely not cover these expenses,” she said.
“The Town of Hanson respects the free speech rights of all residents, and the right of all residents to express their political views, but not on Town property or in a manner that makes it appear that the Town of Hanson is endorsing any political candidate,” said Administrator Green.1
The Town of Hanson Sign Regulations are very clear. At Article 2, Section 1 (K), the regulations state that “No sign permit or department notification is required for Political Signs. Political signs are allowed in all zoning districts on private property with the property owner’s authorization; there is no placement of political signage on municipal property.” (emphasis added.)2
In Article 9 of the Hanson Sign Regulations, “Municipal property” is defined as “Any land owned and/or controlled by the Town of Hanson, including public rights-of-way. Municipal-owned property, for purposes of this regulation, shall be determined by the road layout as maintained by the Highway Surveyor with the assumption that the road is properly located. For ease of determination, any property located between the edge of the municipal-owned road surface and the greater distance to any of the following shall be considered municipal-owned or controlled: street sign, utility pole, fire hydrant and/or sidewalk.”3
According to the Massachusetts Interactive Property Map, 228 High Street is owned by the Town of Hanson.
(228 High Street, in Hanson; credit — Mass. Interactive Property Map.)
There are certain things which are irreducibly public — a municipal water tower is inarguably one of them. And lest there be any confusion: this is the common law, not Communism.
“We just wanted to show our support for Mr. X and his light projection,” said one attendee.
“I cannot think of a better way to spend a beautiful, late fall Sunday afternoon than supporting a property owner in town as well as Donald Trump,” another told Mr. Wayman.4
I’m sorry, but this is nonsensical; the property owner here is seeking to put a political sign not on his own property, but on someone else’s — the Town of Hanson’s. Owning property does not give one a right to violate the property rights of others.
Meanwhile, the Hanson Select Board issued the following statement, via John Guilfoil Public Relations, on October 22nd:
“The Town of Hanson does not endorse any political candidate, party or platform in any election. Town bylaws prohibit the display of political symbols or signage on government property, and the Town is duty-bound to enforce the bylaws.
Tonight, during a meeting in executive session, the Hanson Select Board decided to leave measures in place to prevent a political sign from being projected onto the Town’s water tower by a resident.
On Saturday, Oct. 12, the Town, through its legal counsel, delivered a cease and desist letter to the resident by the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Since that time, the resident has not projected the image but has also declined to agree in writing that they will not project the image onto the water tower again. This has locked the Town into an unfortunate stalemate, and to avoid an on-again, off-again cycle, the Select Board has decided to leave measures in place to dim the projection until further notice.
This is a deeply unfortunate and unnecessary situation that the Town of Hanson and its residents and government officials did not ask to be placed in. The Town’s government officials are in the often unenviable position of objectively and dispassionately enforcing the bylaws put in place by its citizens.
The unnecessary situation endured by the Town of Hanson by a single resident trying to make a political statement has not only caused an undue financial burden on the Town but it has resulted in at least one threat sent in a voicemail toward a Town official and a number of inappropriate and vulgar phone calls and email messages to Town employees who are just doing their jobs.
While it is believed that these messages do not originate locally, they are nonetheless concerning. The Town has informed and is cooperating with the appropriate law enforcement authorities in this matter.
The Hanson Select Board strongly desires that this individual resident agree to put an end to this matter without delay.”5
It should be noted that the some members of the Select Board that issued that statement include, at least so far as their endorsements indicate, supporters of Republican candidates — Selectwoman Ann Rein and Selectman Ed Heal, for instance, endorsed Republican County Commissioner Candidate Jared Valanzola; Selectwoman Rein, Selectman Heal, and Selectman John George have endorsed Ken Sweezey, the GOP candidate for the 6th Plymouth District in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Selectman Joe Weeks, for his part, endorsed the Democratic candidate in the 6th Plymouth District, Becky Coletta. None of these individuals, regardless of party, saw fit to project their own views on the property of the entire Town. Rather, they made use of lawful avenues to express their political viewpoints.
Indeed, I would be shocked if any of the supporters of Mr. X and his projection of one particular political viewpoint onto a piece of property owned by the Town would take the same sanguine view of his offenses if the viewpoint projected were a different one than their own. If it were, say, a campaign poster for the Trotskyist Socialist Equality Party (which describes its principles thusly: “The central task of the SEP is to win the support of American workers for the program of international socialism. The SEP strives, on the basis of this program, to unify and mobilize the working class for the conquest of political power and the establishment of a workers’ state in the United States. It will create, thereby, the objective preconditions for the development of a genuinely democratic, egalitarian and socialist society. These objectives can be realized only within the framework of an international strategy, the goal of which is the global unification of the workers of all countries and the creation of a United Socialist States of the World.” ), I am confident that many supporters of the former President would likely register their objections.
The prohibition in the Hanson regulations on political or other viewpoint matters being displayed on municipal property is not only prudential, given the wide array of views in any community; it is also consistent with precedent.
Indeed, the argument that we are likely to hear — that the Town would somehow violate Mr. X’s freedom of speech by prohibiting him from superimposing his views, in a literal fashion, on the property of the Town — would be absurd on its face. No one is prohibiting Mr. X, consistent with the sign regulations of the Town and the Constitution of the United States, from displaying a Trump 2024 sign on his own property; rather, he is being prevented from displaying it on someone else’s property, the Town of Hanson’s. In the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court Case Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence, Justice Byron White, writing for the Court, affirmed that “[e]xpression, whether oral or written or symbolized by conduct, is subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions. We have often noted that restrictions of this kind are valid, provided that they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.”6
The Hanson Sign Regulations are quite consistent with the standard laid out in Clark v. Community for Nonviolence. We know this because they say so: “It is the intent of these regulations to regulate the time, place and manner under which signs are permitted, and not the content of signage. Although examples of content may be provided in the regulations for clarity, content will not be used as a basis for determining whether or not a proposed sign may be permitted.”7
Here, as required by Clark v. Community for Nonviolence, the regulations are content-neutral; they are tailored specifically and narrowly to municipal property, and meet the Town’s significant interest in maintaining its factional neutrality; and they likewise leave open ample and numerous means beyond the violation of the property rights of the Town for Mr. X to make his views known, should he desire to do so lawfully.
The Lawful Regulations of the Town of Hanson Are Not Suspended Simply Because One Political Faction Wishes This Were So
I deeply respect the right of every citizen to form his or her own view on matters of public importance; and I have been glad to work alongside people in the Save Our Bay coalition who are adamant supporters of Donald Trump. Indeed, I strongly and unequivocally defend the right of the rally-goers to defend the violator of the Town sign regulations. That is their right in a free society.
Nevertheless, I fundamentally disagree with them, and the controversy in Hanson — which is so clearly a case of one faction asserting that its own will and desires ought to take precedence over the law and the rights of the public — is, in my view, illustrative of the larger question before the country: whether one faction, in support of one candidate, will succeed in their attempt to overpower the laws.
In considering the above, we should note a relevant passage from The Federalist No. 10, by James Madison, part of a series of essays written in 1787-1788 with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in defense of the proposed Federal Constitution. In this essay, Madison defines “faction”:
“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”8
In this instance, it is clearly the case that the individual who actively violated the lawful regulations of the Town by quite literally superimposing his political signage onto the property of the Town of Hanson acted contrary to the lawful regulations of the Town. That a group of hundreds would defend this action, which is prima facie “adversed to the rights of other citizens” as well as “to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”, qualifies them as a “faction” under the definition given by Madison above. Madison continued in Federalist No. 10:
“If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution.”9
On January 6th, 2021, we saw the full consequences of having a chief magistrate who refused his duties under Article II, Sec. 3 of the Constitution “to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”; and yet, that individual, and the faction in support of him, as Madison predicted, were “unable to execute and mask [their] violence under the forms of the Constitution.” The Constitution has held — thus far.
With respect for those who take a different view, I am therefore hopeful that tomorrow, November 5th, 2024, “relief [will be] supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat” this faction “by regular vote” – which is why I will be voting for Harris and Walz, and in defense of the Constitution.
Statement of Hanson Town Administrator Lisa Green, Oct. 12th, 2024. Via John Guilfoil Public Relations. https://jgpr.net/2024/10/12/a-statement-from-hanson-town-administrator-lisa-green/.
Hanson Sign Regulations, Art. 2, Section 1 (K)
Ibid, Art. 9.
Ted Wayman, “Hundreds of Trump supporters gather in Hanson to protest decision to remove projection on water tower,” WCVB, Oct. 20th, 2024. https://www.wcvb.com/article/trump-protest-hanson/62662958
Statement of the Hanson Select Board, Oct. 22nd, 2024. Via John Guilfoil Public Relations, https://jgpr.net/2024/10/22/a-statement-from-the-hanson-select-board/.
Clark v. Commun. for Nonviolence, 468 U.S. p. 293 (1984))
Hanson Sign Regulations, Art. 1, Sec. 2 (G).
Federalist No. 10. https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-1-10#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493273.
Federalist No. 10. https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-1-10#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493273.