WHY ARE POSTERS A CRIME IN CHAPEL HILL?

Chapel Hill Ordinance Sec. 16-3 (Placing notices, signs on
utility poles, trees, prohibited; exception.) No signs or notices for advertising purposes shall be fastened or tacked to telephone, telegraph or electric light poles or trees on the streets or sidewalks. However, the town manager may give permission for temporary signs to be placed on the streets or poles. (Comp. 1961, p. 44, § 3; Comp. 1961, pp. 51, 54)

In 2002, after a local activist was detained, cited, found guilty and fined after posting flyers on Franklin Street for a Banquet for Global Peace and Justice being held in Carrboro, more than 1,200 citizens of Chapel Hill petitioned the Chapel Hill Town Council to repeal this misguided ordinance. The Chapel Hill Herald editorialized against the ban, and the Town Planning Board recommended that it be repealed.

In the end, the Town Council voted 6-3 to keep the ban (Council members Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom and Ed Harrison were the only three members to oppose the ban, while Pat Evans, Flicka Bateman, Edith Wiggins, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Mayor Kevin Foy voted to keep it). Five years later, new council members have been elected, but the issue hasn't been revisited and the ban still stands.

In our own ways, we are all artists. As the Chapel Hill Herald pointed out, "the poles are used by dozens of people each day to let the community know about a concert, an apartment to rent or even a banquet for peace and justice" (CH Herald editorial, April 18, 2002). A law like this is contrary to the tolerance and free exchange of ideas that makes Chapel Hill such a special place. If you think we should be able to hang posters on telephone poles without fear of arrest, sign the on-line petition!

"We, the undersigned, request that the Chapel Hill Town Council revise or repeal Chapel Hill Ordinance Sec. 16-3 to allow the posting of signs or notices for advertising purposes on utility poles, in order to encourage free speech, artistic expression, and grassroots marketing by local businesses."

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE ON-LINE PETITION!

Mr. Jazzy, Killer, Sonny Boy, and Mr. Crazy say FREE THE TELEPHONE POLES!

Just this spring, art appeared on telephone poles around town. Hand painted wooden signs were nailed to poles featuring "lost" animals - Mr. Jazzy, Killer, Sonny Boy, and Mr. Crazy. "A little guerrilla art in Chapel Hill," said Kate Flory, executive director of the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission. "That's fun." Unfortunately, as the law now stands, IT'S ALSO ILLEGAL.

Local mom finds 'lost' art
Chapel Hill News
March 21, 2007
By Mark Schultz
Page 1

CHAPEL HILL -- Sandra Elliott has started collecting art.

But the Chapel Hill interior designer says she'll gladly put the art back where she found it if the artist wants her to.

Elliott was on Elliott Road about a month ago when she saw the first one: the word "Lost" and a crudely painted dog on a hand-sized piece of wood nailed to a utility pole.

Her son, Blake, yelled at her when she pried the piece of wood from the pole.

"Mom, you took the sign down," said Blake, 12. "What if somebody is trying to find their dog?"

"Well, there's no phone number," she replied. "And I don't think any dog looks like this."

The dog on the wooden board had five orange stripes down its back.

So far Elliott has collected four "Lost" signs looking for creatures named Mr. Crazy, Killer, Sonny Boy and Mr. Jazzy.

"I have not heard of this," said Kate Flory, executive director of the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission. "A little guerilla art in Chapel Hill. That's fun."

In addition to Elliott Road, Elliott said she has found the signs on South Lakeshore Drive, old Erwin Road and Old Chapel Hill Road.

"It's become our hunt," Elliott said of her turns driving in Blake's school carpool.

But she doesn't want to keep the art if its creator didn't intend for people to take it.

"I'm enjoying this, but I don't want to look like I'm going around stealing things," she said.

Community opinion ignored by Town Council decision to maintain poster ban

Response to 11/11/02 Town Council vote

A couple months ago, it looked like the Chapel Hill Town Council was going to take sensible action on this issue and revise the outdated poster ban.

Now, they've decided to do nothing. I'm not sure what changed their minds, and I would hope it had nothing to do with pressure from Duke Power.

I'd like to think that the voices and wishes of the community speak louder than a big corporation when it comes to deciding town issues. Maybe I'm just naive.

Most people are flabbergasted to learn that this law exists to begin with. We collected 1200 signatures on a petition to change the law without breaking a sweat. I think the vast majority of residents in Chapel Hill, if asked, would agree that the town has better things to spend our tax dollars on than arresting people for putting up flyers, and tearing people's posters down daily. All we're asking is that they let people's posters stay up for a week at a time, which would save the town money. Would that be so terrible?

So at some point, I would hope the Council re-visits this issue and does the common sense thing by reversing its decision.

Council keeps ban on utility pole flyers

Chapel Hill Herald
Friday November 15, 2002
BY RAY GRONBERG
Page 1

CHAPEL HILL - Despite the pleas of a Rosemary Street record store owner, the Town Council has decided to retain Chapel Hill's longtime ban on posting advertising flyers on utility poles.

A divided council voted 6-3 earlier this week to retain the ban. Members who favored retaining the ban said it's consistent with the town's desire to maintain a clean downtown.

"I'm looking for consistency," said Councilwoman Flicka Bateman, who noted that the next edition of Chapel Hill's land-use law might limit Duke Power's ability to install overhead utility wires.

Concern about aesthetics is driving that decision, so it makes no sense to "allow the cluttering of utility poles at eye level" at the same time, she said.

The three dissenters - Councilmen Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt and Bill Strom - wanted to repeal or significantly modify the ordinance.

Kleinschmidt and Strom argued that the presence of flyers on utility poles is a common feature of life in a college town.

"It boils down to a subjective aesthetic," Strom said. "A creosote-coated, pressure-treated piece of lumber with 9 million staples in it is aesthetically unappealing [too]."

The council opened debate on the flyer ban this spring, at the request of Erik Ose, the owner of Lost City Music & Video on West Rosemary Street.

Ose asked the council to consider repealing the ban after he received a ticket for attaching a flyer advertising a "banquet for global peace and justice" to a pole.

A police officer who saw Ose put up the flyer issued the ticket after the record store owner refused an order to take it down. The ticket eventually cost Ose $115.

Ose criticized the council's decision to retain the ban on flyers.

"Most people are flabbergasted to learn that this law exists to begin with," he said. "All we're asking is that they let people's posters stay up for a week at a time, which would save the town money, encourage low-cost marketing by locally owned businesses and grass-roots political expression, and preserve the sense of community that flyers and posters give our town. Would that be so terrible?"

Roughly 1,200 people signed a petition organized by Ose that favored repeal. But a key player - Duke Power - weighed in strongly against the proposal.

Duke officials argued that the heavy staples used to attach flyers cause wood to erode over time, and create safety hazards for workers who have to climb poles to maintain utility lines.

Duke, BellSouth and Time Warner Cable own most of the poles in town. The poles are private property, and some critics of the repeal proposal argued that it amounted to the legalization of trespassing.

Ose saw it differently. "I'd like to think that the voices and wishes of the community speak louder than a big corporation when it comes to deciding town issues," he said.

Meanwhile, Mayor Kevin Foy noted that the town is in the process of rendering the debate moot. It's already asked Duke to replace the wooden poles now in place along North Columbia Street and the 100 block of East Franklin Street with metal fixtures that jibe with the requirements of Chapel Hill's Streetscape program.

Monday's vote also ordered Town Manager Cal Horton and his staff to look for additional places to install the four-sided flier kiosks that are part of the Streetscape program.

1200 signatures total from residents of Chapel Hill on petition to repeal poster ban

Statement to Chapel Hill Town Council, 10/16/02

Good evening, Mayor Foy and members of the Council.

My name is Erik Ose, and I first came before you a last spring with a petition to allow the posting of notices on utility poles in Chapel Hill.

I see this issue is one of the items before the Council at tonight's public hearing, so I wanted to come back before you and present another 200 signatures on this petition. This makes a total of 1,200 Chapel Hill residents who have signed, which hopefully demonstrates that however minor this issue might seem in the global scheme of things, it's still a local issue that a great number of town citizens care deeply about. It speaks directly to what kind of town we all want Chapel Hill to be.

The ordinance that first prohibited signs or notices for advertising purposes from being placed on utility poles dates from April 7, 1925.

Maybe this ordinance made sense for Chapel Hill when it was still a small village back in 1925. It probably seemed like a progressive law, a way to keep local businesses from littering the town’s landscape with excessive commercial appeals. But there are important differences between the Chapel Hill of 1925 and today. In 2002, if you’re putting a flyer up on a telephone pole, more than likely, it’s advertising a concert, or it’s about a political issue, or you’re a small business, a locally owned business without a huge advertising budget. Local businesses like C.O. Copies, Back Door CD’s, Carolina Car Wash, Internationalist Books, and the Burrito Bunker use flyers all the time to attract customers.

These stores are trying every day to compete with faceless chain stores in our town owned by national corporations, the kind of economic competition that didn’t exist in Chapel Hill 77 years ago. I think the town needs to do all it can to encourage, not discourage locally owned businesses to stay open in Chapel Hill.

Obviously, even more disturbing is that you're subject to arrest if a police officer catches you in the act of posting a flyer. I don't think our town should be spending its limited resources criminalizing the simple act of its residents putting posters on telephone poles.

I know Duke Power would like to keep this ordinance as its now written, because the town is spending our tax dollars to keep their poles clean. I would think a utility like Duke Power would want to give something back to the community in which they operate by letting the citizens of Chapel Hill use the utility poles to post notices. They say the poles don't last as long if people put posters on them. What, are they going to fall over once they accumulate a critical mass of staples?

And the argument about how staples jeopardize the safety of linemen seems to be a red herring, because most linemen these days don't climb poles, they go up in cherrypickers, and if Duke Power is truly concerned about their workers' safety, they should be willing to spend the extra money to let them go up in cherrypickers if there's a problem with the poles.

I’d also briefly like to address the aesthetic argument against posters. If this ordinance is designed to improve the town’s appearance by keeping utility poles bare, then it’s accomplishing exactly the opposite of what it was intended to do.

Take a look at any one of the utility poles downtown located at major intersections. What looks better, a cold, barren pole littered with jagged, torn scraps of paper, or one covered with colorful, exciting posters representing the free exchange of ideas that’s so central to the very idea of what Chapel Hill is about? That’s obviously an aesthetic judgement call. But the reality is that when the town spends taxpayer money to tear down people’s posters every single day, the posters are going to look like eyesores. Look at the poles. They’re covered with staples and remnants of posters. Citizens put posters up on utility poles every day, and they’re going to keep doing it, unless there’s a cop on every corner ready to arrest them. So the poles are going to look like eyesores unless the Council revises this ordinance.

Right now the public works department spends taxpayer dollars to tear peoples’ posters down daily. Wouldn’t it make more sense and save some money by having them do it just a little less often, maybe once a week, like they clear the town-owned kiosks on Sunday mornings. That way, people’s posters would have a chance to be seen without being immediately torn down, and the poles would look more aesthetically pleasing all week long. But again, that’s just my aesthetic judgement call. The most important thing is for the town to start placing value on its citizens being able to freely express ourselves.

Some people might say that by virtue of the town maintaining several kiosks in the downtown area where flyers can legally be posted, the town has every right to declare utility poles off limits to public posting. Over the summer, more kiosks have been constructed as part of the town's Streetscepe improvement program. That’s great, more kiosks are certainly welcome. But the utility poles exist, they’re not being used for anything else, they’re a natural venue for free speech. More kiosks cost more money, but it would actually cost the town less money to clear the utility poles weekly instead of daily if this ordinance is revised.

Besides, I think the Council needs to take a hard look at whether speech in town is truly free if it’s restricted to only certain little areas. On any given day in Chapel Hill, people are on the move, going about their daily lives, and not necessarily stopping by the town-owned poster kiosks for their daily appointment with free speech. Bottom line, that’s why people put flyers on utility poles, because it’s where their messages have a realistic chance of being seen and heard.

I know this Council has the town's best interests at heart, and when deciding this issue, I know the Council will consider what is the right thing to do, the progressive thing to do, the Chapel Hill thing to do. Thank you.

Council loosens stance on signs: Rules on banners, flyers likely to ease

Chapel Hill Herald
Tuesday July 02, 2002
By RAY GRONBERG
Page 1

CHAPEL HILL - A shakeup of Chapel Hill's rules on flyers and political signs is likely after the Town Council gets back from its summer recess.

Council members have tentatively endorsed an ordinance that would do away with a restriction on the number of campaign signs on private property, and a time limit on their display.

The 5-4 decision also would loosen a size restriction that applies to temporary banners, like the one that provoked last September's "woe to our enemies" flap between town officials and a Franklin Street restaurant owner.

The narrow margin of the vote means that council members will have to hold a second ballot on the ordinance when they reconvene in late August, but passage seems assured.

"There are arguments that limiting speech in that way, as far as political signs go, is unconstitutional," said Mark Kleinschmidt, one of the council members who voted for the change. "Even if it's not, I don't think it's necessary that we regulate that to the full extent of our power."

Kleinschmidt and five of his colleagues also joined forces last week to instruct Town Manager Cal Horton to prepare a second ordinance that would do away with Chapel Hill's ban on attaching flyers to phone and light poles.

The move answered a West Rosemary Street record-store owner, Erik Ose, who sought the ban's repeal after police ticketed him in April for putting up flyers that advertised a "banquet for global peace and justice."

The repeal ordinance should be ready after the council's summer break and will include a provision that allows the Public Works Department to strip flyers off poles up to once a week.

The twin votes capped several months of debate about the town's sign rules that began when zoning inspectors made restaurant owner Scott Maitland take down the "woe to our enemies" banner.

Maitland's banner ran afoul of the town's existing regulation because it was four times larger than allowed.

But the removal triggered complaints because the banner's wording - which voiced Maitland's reaction to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington - had drawn objections from a trio of council members who thought it too bellicose.

A subsequent review by administrators found that some of the rules were too strict to survive a court challenge.

The limit on the number of campaign signs a resident can post on private property clearly fell into that category, as the town was only allowing one. The federal appeals court that hears cases from North Carolina has said a two-sign limit is unconstitutional.

Officials also had doubts about the time limit that applies to campaign signs. The town currently allows them to go up 30 days before an election and requires that they be taken down within seven days after voting.

The upcoming change would waive those restrictions entirely for signs on private property and loosen them for postings on the public right of way. The new right of way limits would allow postings 45 days before an election and up to 12 days after one.

Ose's repeal request arrived after the ordinance review was under way, and targeted a section of the town code that hadn't gotten council scrutiny until he spoke up.

The flyer ban applies to any posting, whether it advertises a business or a political viewpoint.

A trio of council members - Flicka Bateman, Pat Evans and Jim Ward - voted against both proposals last week. Mayor Kevin Foy joined them in voting against the changes to the rules on campaign signs.

Bateman and Ward indicated that they had more objections to repealing the flyer ban. They and Evans noted that light poles are private property, which makes attaching flyers to them a form of trespassing.

Evans and Bateman added that flyers would only mean more visual clutter and litter on the town's streets, especially if they proliferate after the ban's repeal.

"Some people think this is only going to be the downtown, and it's not, it's going to be throughout the town," Evans said. "There's the possibility that some very offensive signs could be put up because there's no regulating them at all. And I don't know how we could possibly afford to take them down each week throughout the community."

Bateman agreed.

"People have made such a big thing about the entryways into Chapel Hill, but there are utility poles that line the entryways into Chapel Hill," she said. "And that would be a great place to advertise everything from 'free haircuts' to 'Viva Castro.' "

But Kleinschmidt said the town barely enforces the existing restrictions, a stance that undercuts the rule of law.

"It basically distills down into government giving citizens a message that 'we're in control and don't you forget about it,' " he said. "I don't think that's good policy. If we have laws on the books that aren't being enforced, we need to change them."

Posts on poles may be allowed

The Chapel Hill News
June 26, 2002
News in Review
Page A2

By the end of the year, utility poles around Chapel Hill may be sporting legal flyers and posters.

On Monday, the Chapel Hill Town Council backed a request by Erik Ose, a local activist and businessman, to allow signs on utility poles, a practice that is now banned.

Duke Power opposed the change in policy, citing nails and staples for causing "a degradation of the integrity of the wood" and making it less safe for crews to climb the poles and repair lines.

Council member Pat Evans opposed the signs for safety reasons, as well as aesthetics.

"There will be signs that spring up addressing every major issue and commercial venture," Evans said. "Allowing all kinds of signs to be posted in all corners of the community is the wrong direction to take."

But the majority of the council disagreed.

"I don't think there is going to be a crisis of posting around town," council member Mark Kleinschmidt responded.

The council voted 6-3, with Evans, Jim Ward and Flicka Bateman dissenting, to ask the town attorney to bring back ideas on how to change the ordinance in the fall.

If the ordinance changes, Public Works staff members would take the signs down at regular intervals in much the way they clean up the town-owned kiosks.

1000 signatures from residents of Chapel Hill on petition to repeal poster ban

Statement to Chapel Hill Town Council, 6/24/02

Good evening, Mayor Foy and members of the Council.

My name is Erik Ose, and I first came before you a couple of months ago with a petition to allow the posting of notices on utility poles in Chapel Hill.

I see the Council is scheduled to discuss this issue tonight, so I wanted to come back before you and present another 100 signatures on this petition, in addition to the 900 I delivered to you last month. This makes a total of 1,000 Chapel Hill residents who have signed this petition, which hopefully demonstrates that however minor this issue might seem in the global scheme of things, it's still a local issue that a great number of town citizens care deeply about. It speaks directly to what kind of town we all want Chapel Hill to be.

In the couple of months since you first received this petition, the town has constructed three new kiosks on Franklin Street where postings are allowed. Numerous people have commented to me that they guess the construction of these kiosks represents the town's response to our petition. I've responded that I'm sure the kiosks were already scheduled to be built as part of the town's Streetscape improvements, and are unrelated to the timing of this petition. I certainly hope that the Council will not turn to these new kiosks as the only solution.

More kiosks are welcome, but they cost money that the town can ill afford at a time of widespread budget cuts. In contrast, telephone poles already exist, they're all over town, not just in the downtown area, and it would actually cost the town less instead of more to allow citizens to post notices on them, because now the Public Works Department spends tax dollars clearing the poles more often than they clear the kiosks. Clearing the poles once a week makes much more sense, would cost the town less, and give people's messages a chance to be seen and heard.

Bottom line, the town shouldn't be spending its limited resources criminalizing the simple act of its residents putting posters on telephone poles. Thank you.

PRESERVING COLLEGE TOWN FLAVOR: Handbills don't do anyone harm

Chapel Hill Herald
Saturday June 22, 2002
EDITORIAL
Page 4

"I heartily accept the motto, 'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically."

So wrote Henry David Thoreau in his essay "Civil Disobedience," a manifesto exemplified by Chapel Hill music store owner Erik Ose.

Ose's act of defiance of a town ordinance, tacking up a handbill on a utility pole on Franklin Street, cost him a $115 fine, but it bought him a hearing:

The Chapel Hill Town Council is scheduled to revisit its prohibition of fliers on utility poles Monday.

In April, Ose posted a flier in front of his business, Lost City Music & Video on West Rosemary Street, advertising a "banquet for global peace and justice."

Perhaps because of Ose's willingness to bear the brunt of fiat upon his pocketbook rather than carp from the sidelines, Councilman Bill Strom put Ose's request to repeal the relevant section of the Town Code on the meeting agenda.

"I thought [Ose] made a good point," Strom said. "There are some unspoken things that make for community character."

Exactly.

Also, the good council members should consider how their longstanding neglect of enforcing the ordinance only underscores how superfluous it is to that character.

Much of what passes for community-building these days seems aimed at recovering what communities have in their folly done their best to obliterate, in this case, the sans souci charm of a college village.

One needs only visit The Streets at Southpoint mall in Durham to see how its designers have tried to reclaim the town's formerly similar ambience - with its faux streetscapes - that the last generation of city planners discarded.

To which the Chapel Hill Town Council can take the reasonable step of preserving the authentic item.

Handbills are simple and practical communication that harm no one and help cement the social contract.

To paraphrase a neo-Waldenite, Joni Mitchell, Chapel Hill should recognize what it's got before it's gone.

Council to debate lifting flyer ban: Music and video store owner was fined $115 for putting poster on utility pole

Chapel Hill Herald
Tuesday June 18, 2002
Page 1
By RAY GRONBERG

CHAPEL HILL - The fight's left him $115 poorer, but Erik Ose will at least have the satisfaction of seeing the Town Council debate the petition he filed seeking the repeal of a ban on stapling flyers to phone poles.

Council members are set to debate Ose's petition Monday, more than two weeks after Town Manager Cal Horton advised them to preserve the flyer ban.

Councilman Bill Strom stepped in last week to make sure the repeal request wasn't tabled without discussion.

"I thought [Ose] made a good point," Strom explained afterward. "There are some unspoken things that make for community character. It seems to me as if this is an area the town can come up with a way to compromise."

Ose - the owner of Lost City Music & Video - asked the town to repeal the ordinance after a police sergeant ticketed him April 4 for stapling a flyer to a pole.

The flyer advertised a "banquet for global peace and justice" that eventually raised about $2,500 for a variety of causes.

Chapel Hill has banned the posting of signs or leaflets on telephone and light poles for decades.

A Chapel Hill police officers saw Ose put up the flyer and called in his sergeant, Anthony Brooks, when the record-store owner refused an order to take it down. Brooks repeated the order and wrote the ticket when Ose again refused.

Ose branded the ordinance a violation of free speech and vowed to fight the ticket. But he made no headway with a judge when his case came up May 20. The judge found him guilty and fined him $25, plus $90 in court costs.

"The court felt that the way the ordinance was written, it was pretty clear I'd violated it," Ose said. "The police officer caught me in the act, and it was a pretty cut-and-dried case. But they didn't go into the free-speech implications."

Meanwhile, Horton and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos were advising the council that the ordinance is on firm ground, legally speaking.

In the eyes of the court system, "Aesthetic values and other legitimate concerns related to public safety and littering are sufficient to support the town's current regulation," they said.

Horton added that those reasons were also good enough from a policy standpoint.

"We think that community appearance is important and that having these kinds of materials on utility poles throughout the downtown detracts from the appearance of downtown," he said.

Ose has countered by arguing that the flyer ban keeps small businesses and nonprofit groups without big advertising budgets from spreading their messages. Roughly 1,000 people have signed petitions supporting his request.

Opposition is coming from Duke Power, which owns most of the poles.

Strom said he'd prefer allowing postings, so long as the Public Works Department removes them at regular intervals.

A Public Works employee already strips flyers from poles and kiosks each week.

Horton said the kiosks already offer would-be posters a place to display their materials. The town is putting up new ones as part of its Streetscape program.

So far, the new kiosks have been well received. "They certainly are used, and I think their appearance is an improvement over the old wooden ones," Horton said.

Do you think residents should be able to post bills on telephone polls around town?

The Chapel Hill News
May 12, 2002
Voices from the Hill
Page: A4

It's a waste of the taxpayers' money for the town to put efforts into stopping people from posting things. Why can't they spend money on making the town a safer place at night?

Lori Beiles
Chapel Hill


People have been doing it for years and the town may not want things posted because it looks prettier, but this is a college town and postings are part of that.

Darlene Clampett
Crumpler, NC


This is just those running the town being stupid. The bills don't hurt anyone and I would rather look at postings than a telephone pole covered in staples and scrap paper.

Allan Parnell
Orange County


I understand the appearance of the town might be better without the postings, but this town relies on things related to the college and those postings are part of the college and the town.

Paige Stonnell
Carrboro


This is suppose to be a free market society and everyone should be able to post things. The ads are not disturbing anyone and they are not up on private property.

Kee Yuen
Chapel Hill

Petitioners want to post messages on town's telephone poles

The Chapel Hill News
May 8, 2002
Page A1
By Virginia Knapp

CHAPEL HILL -- It's a message some folks want plastered all over town: Let us stick flyers on telephone poles.

More than 800 people have signed a petition asking the Town Council to repeal an ordinance banning posters on utility poles. They say that the problem is that there aren't nearly enough spaces where bands, small businesses and anyone willing to spend a few cents at Kinko's can exercise their freedom of speech.

"The free speech issue is the most important thing here," said Erik Ose, the Lost City music store owner who is leading the petition drive. "We want to show council that a lot of people care about this issue and that this is an ordinance that serves no useful purpose."

It took a ticket for Ose to start the petition drive.

In April, Ose was hanging flyers on utility poles along Franklin Street for the Banquet for Global Peace and Justice, a dinner sponsored by Internationalist Books, the Triangle Free Press and the UNC Campaign to End the Cycle of Violence.

In front of the Franklin Street post office, Ose was stopped by Chapel Hill Police officers, who asked him to tear down the flyers he had just tacked up. When he refused, Ose was cited for violating section 16.3 of the town ordinances.

"Both officers said they were surprised by my willingness to waste my time and money by being written up and having to go to court over this issue, when I could have done what everyone else they've ever caught in the act of postering on telephone poles does," Ose said. "Namely, torn my own posters down, apologize and go on to the next corner to put up more posters once the officers' backs were turned.

"But why should a citizen have to play cat and mouse with the police?"

The ordinance banning signs on utility poles is a long-standing one. Ose found the regulation in codes dating back to 1925.

"It was probably passed to prohibit excessive commercial appeals by businesses," Ose said. "But there's an important difference between the Chapel Hill of 1925 and today. Today you're more than likely to be advertising a concert or a social issue or you're advertising a small local business without a huge advertising budget."

One argument that the pole-poster advocates use is that the fliers help nonprofits and small businesses spread their messages.

"No nonprofits I know of have an ad budget the size of Wal-Mart's," said Andrew Pearson, a UNC student who was helping Ose post flyers for the peace banquet. "It's a shame they can't put up a flyer on a utility pole to advertise."

Another argument is that the town has taken down all but two of the five kiosks on Franklin Street where it was legal to post flyers.

"It's a problem of the town's own making because people don't have enough places to post," said Matt Barrett, co-owner of the Poster Guys, a business that posts flyers for everything from university functions to church services. "I don't think a telephone pole is a thing of beauty, anyway, so anything that can make it more useful is good."

Curtis Brooks, the town's landscape architect, says the old kiosks were in poor repair and needed to be taken down as part of Streetscape improvements downtown.

A new kiosk went up recently in front of the town-owned parking lot at the corner of Rosemary and Columbia streets. Unlike the old wooden pole and shingle kiosks, the new one is made of fabricated metal and plywood for the posting boards.

"This is new design, so we decided to install one as a prototype," Brooks said, adding that he hopes the others will be installed by the end of the year. "I'm very pleased with it."

The kiosks are cleared of posters weekly by the Public Works Department, and Ose suggests that the poles could be cleared with the same regularity. Public Works employees clear the utility poles of illegal posters every other day or so now.

"Revising and repealing the ordinance would provide a cost-effective way to make sure people's messages are being heard," Ose said, comparing the easy availability of poles to the cost of installing more kiosks. "It also would save the town money by not having Public Works go out to tear down the posters."

But some folks like having the posters torn down. People who support the ordinance say the flyers, torn scraps of paper and staples hurt the town's appearance.

"I think it looks pretty trashy if you have people sticking posters up all over town," said Mickey Ewell, owner of Spanky's and 411 West restaurants on Franklin Street.

However, Barrett defended the posters as an enhancement.

"People who run the town are very hung up on appearances. They want it to look like a mall," Barrett said. "I'm all for posting on telephone poles. It makes it look like the town has something going on."

Ose agreed.

"What looks better: A pole covered with staples and torn, jagged scraps of paper or a pole that is covered with brightly colored posters?"

The council will take up the petition again in June, but Ose will present additional petition signatures at the council's next business meeting on Monday.

That's a week before Ose's May 20 court date to fight his citation for postering.

Free the Telephone Poles!

The Chapel Hill News
April 21, 2002
Page A1
By Frank Heath

My friend Erik Ose visited me with a petition this week. Ose, who owns Lost City Music and Video on Rosemary Street, was given a citation recently for hanging flyers on a utility pole in downtown Chapel Hill. His petition will ask the Town Council to consider changing the ordinance that prohibits the posting of handbills on utility poles in Chapel Hill.

In a statement accompanying this petition, Erik points out the futility of the ordinance when he says, "I could have simply done what everyone else they've ever caught in the act of postering on telephone poles does, namely, torn my own posters down, apologize, and go on to the next corner to put up more posters once the officers' backs were turned. Citizens put flyers up on utility poles every day, and they're going to keep doing it, unless there's a cop on every corner ready to arrest them."

In the end, tearing flyers off utility poles in this town only reveals the even uglier utility poles.

Truth be told, I never envisioned the time that I would stand on a soap box preaching about flyers. In a world where people are blowing themselves up for what they believe, I know that the business of posting handbills is truly a trivial pursuit. But since Ose brought it up -- and produced such a persuasive petition -- I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

If I am an expert on one thing, it's hanging flyers. I've been "flyering" in Chapel Hill since 1986. I've probably affixed half a million flyers and posters to bulletin boards, walls, newspaper boxes, kiosks, fences, trucks and, yes, utility poles, around the Triangle area.

I've actually received citations in Raleigh and Durham for posting on telephone poles. They call it "littering."

Many people see flyers as a blight on the landscape. I completely understand where these people are coming from. Flyers are not always neatly displayed, they can be distracting, they flap in the wind, they get wet, the colors run and they fall to the ground.

Some people, though, see flyers as beautiful and informative, a manifestation of social energy. To these folks, an abundance of flyers in public areas is a sign of public vitality, an indication that there are layers of activity beneath the surface of a place.

Flyers convey a message with impact and immediacy. Like a well-built house, a good flyer combines elements of design, color, message and art into an integrated whole.

Bulletin boards, kiosks and other flyer-posting spots in areas of pedestrian traffic provide an outlet for exchange of information and ideas about local organizations, events and meetings. Flyering also presents small local businesses with an alternative to expensive advertising campaigns.

I believe it's good to bring up flyering at this point in time because for several years now the base of support for public postings has been shrinking in Chapel Hill. As the number of flyer kiosks downtown has dwindled from five to two (and I doubt the kiosk in front of Subway will last through the next phase of Streetscape), some of the town's vitality has been lost.

Additionally, flyers are no longer allowed in many of the restaurants and businesses that traditionally provided wall space for them. (The Yogurt Pump, Hectors, Brueggers, Traxx, the Flying Burrito and the Harris Teeter supermarkets are some examples of this trend toward bare walls.)

On top of that, the number of bulletin boards on the UNC campus has dropped significantly, and the dormitories, now locked up 24 hours a day, are no longer a flyering option. A round of flyering that once would have taken six to eight hours per week, now requires no more than three hours.

The bottom line is, the prevailing wind here seems to be blowing away from favoring posters and other spontaneous communication forms -- and toward neatly trimmed hedges and arrow-straight, clean-washed brick sidewalks. Messages, it seems, may soon only be popping up on your computer screen. (My friend Groves, a fellow posterer, calls Streetscape the "downtown uglification.") In supporting his petition, Ose cuts to the chase when he says, "I think the council needs to take a hard look at whether speech is truly free if it's restricted to one or two little areas in town."

I can't help but draw a parallel between this dwindling support for handbills and the current climate of federal paranoia about speech in this entire country.

As far as I'm concerned, the people of Chapel Hill should be defiantly proud that Jesse Helms once suggested we put a fence around this town and call it the North Carolina Zoo; and we should be proud of the fact that we share space and ideas with the most progressive state university in the South.

The way I look at it, if progressive thought ain't happening here, it ain't happening.

Shouldn't Chapel Hill, of all places, attempt to foster an environment where all people feel free to speak their mind, rather than a Cary-style neatness?

Free the telephone poles, I say.

Frank Heath is a native Chapel Hillian and a local businessman. Messages for him can be sent to frank@catscradle.com or left at 932-2019.

POSTING ON POLES: Ban on flyers should be repealed

Chapel Hill Herald
Thursday April 18, 2002
EDITORIAL
Page 4

Chalk up another law you knew nothing about: it is forbidden, by the town of Chapel Hill, to post flyers and signs on telephone and utility poles. The reason you may not know about this, of course, is that the statute is honored more in the breech.

In other words, no one has paid much attention to the 41-year-old law, at least until Erik Ose decided to fight it. Ose, the owner of a West Rosemary Street music store, earlier this month was putting up flyers advertising a "banquet for global peace and justice." A Chapel Hill police officer saw him attaching a flyer to a pole near the Franklin Street post office.

The officer, who apparently did know about the statute, asked Ose to desist. In the spirit of principled refusal made famous by our colonial forefathers, Ose refused. He refused again, when asked by a police sergeant, who then presented Ose with a ticket for the infraction.

The infraction was of section 16-3 of the Town Code, which says "no signs or notices for advertising purposes shall be fastened or tacked to telephone, telegraph or electric light poles or trees on the streets or sidewalks."

The logical question to ask here is why there is such an ordinance on the town books. The poles are used by dozens of people each day to let the community know about a concert, an apartment to rent or even a banquet for peace and justice.

They do no harm. In fact, as Ose suggests, the poles full of information add to the ambiance of a college town, where the skinny on what's happening is available on every street corner.

They do not interfere with town efforts to keep the community beautiful and tidy. In fact, very few of the flyers last more than a week on the poles, since the town's Public Works Department regularly strips them from their posts.

Chapel Hill officials would prefer flyers be attached only to the town kiosks, where postings are legal. But there are just a few kiosks - now, in fact, fewer than normal - and they are not to be found everywhere.

Officials must safeguard the town's appearance, but regulating the posting of flyers seems a bit much. Trees still need to be protected against the depredations of staples, but the rest of the ordinance serves no useful purpose. It should be repealed.

Local Business Petitions for Revamped Flyer Policy

The Daily Tar Heel
April 15, 2002
By Jenny Huang

A local business owner has petitioned the Chapel Hill Town Council to change an ordinance that prohibits signs from being fastened to utility poles, claiming the regulation has direct implications for free speech.
Erik Ose, who owns Lost City Music and Video, located on 402 Rosemary St., says small business owners and community organizations should be allowed to post flyers on telephone poles for grass-roots advertising purposes.

But according to section 16-3 of the town code, "no signs or notices for advertising purposes shall be fastened or tacked to telephone, telegraph or electric light poles or trees on the streets or sidewalks."

Last week Ose petitioned the Town Council to revise or repeal the ordinance so signs can be posted on poles.

During the meeting, Ose told the council that two Chapel Hill police officers issued him a citation for stapling a poster on a pole in front of the Franklin Street post office and refusing to tear the poster down.

Ose said that although the police officers were courteous, he was disturbed when the officers said they were surprised that Ose would bother being cited and having to go to court when he could have taken the posters down, apologized and put up more posters on the next corner.

"But you know, who's fooling who here?" Ose said Monday night. "Why should a citizen have to play cat-and-mouse games with the police when they're simply trying to publicize a worthy cause or advertise their business or speak out about an issue they care about?"

Chapel Hill Planning Director Roger Waldon said he was surprised to hear Ose's comments on Monday night because he usually hears complaints about people posting signs on poles.

"Usually, the comments we get are the opposite," Waldon said. "The main way in which this issue has come before is periodically there is concern about the appearance of downtown (Chapel Hill)."

Waldon said local merchants have always been concerned that scraps of flyers on telephone poles would degrade the appearance of the downtown area.

But Ose said he thinks aesthetic issues should not be sacrificed for the freedom of expression in the community.

"To me, a pole (with flyers) represents what this town is all about," he said during an interview Tuesday night. "What is more aesthetically appealing -- a picture of a pole with (flyers of) diverse ideas on it or no flyers at all?"

But Curtis Brooks, public works landscape architect, said downtown kiosks were established to create space for businesses and community organizations to advertise.

"The reason we like kiosks instead of poles is because it centralizes notices, so when we do our weekly clean up, it centralizes things," he said.

Brooks said employees of the public works landscape division clean up downtown litter -- including flyers on telephone poles -- on a daily basis and clear off kiosks on a weekly basis.

"Our concerns are just practical," Brooks said. "We prefer the posting of bills in centralized locations."

But Ose said the freedom of speech is restricted with the kiosks, especially since the number of available kiosks has decreased from five to two because of downtown construction.

"If you're restricting free speech to only two areas in town -- is that really free speech?" he said.

Darren Hunicutt, co-coordinator of Internationalist Books on 405 W. Franklin St., said grass-roots advertising is an important medium because small business owners and local community organizations don't have large advertising budgets.

"For small business owners and non-profit organizations, I think (grass-roots advertising) is an exceptional resource," Hunicutt said. "With the amount of foot traffic that goes around, I really think it's effective."

Ose said he has accumulated about 300 signatures on several petitions and plans to present the signatures to the Town Council during its regular business meeting tonight.

But Brooks warns that it is not up to the residents or town staff to make the final decision.

"It's not up to us to value or pass judgment on a policy," Brooks said.

"(Whether or not we can post flyers on poles) is ultimately a policy decision decided by the council."

The City Editor can be reached at citydesk@unc.edu.

Store owner challenges ban on flyers: Utility pole law impedes free speech rights, he says

Chapel Hill Herald
Saturday April 13, 2002
Page 1
By RAY GRONBERG

CHAPEL HILL - A West Rosemary Street record store owner wants the Town Council to repeal Chapel Hill's oft-ignored ban on posting flyers and signs on telephone poles.

Erik Ose says the 41-year-old law is an impediment to free speech that harms political groups and small businesses that can't afford newspaper and broadcast advertising.

Efforts to enforce the ban are a waste of money and undercut Chapel Hill's college-town image, he adds.

"It is a judgment call, but, personally, I feel a telephone pole covered with colorful, exciting, diverse posters looks better than cold, barren poles covered with staples and jagged pieces of paper," Ose said. "That's the kind of Chapel Hill I want to live in, not one where posters are treated like a scourge to be torn down and destroyed."

Ose appeared before the Town Council on Monday to ask members to consider a repeal measure and has since launched a petition drive to gather public support. He said more than 200 people have signed.

Council members relayed Ose's request to Town Manager Cal Horton, who will report back with research and advice later this spring.

Ose launched his repeal drive after a Chapel Hill police sergeant ticketed him on April 4 for attaching a flyer to a pole near the Franklin Street post office.

The flyer advertised a "banquet for global peace and justice" later that night in Carrboro that ended up raising $2,500 for a variety of social justice causes, said Ose, who runs Lost City Music & Video.

A police officer saw Ose stapling a flyer to the pole and asked him to take it down. Ose refused.

"I said I was sorry, I couldn't do that, because I didn't think it was a just ordinance," he recalled.

The officer summoned his sergeant, Anthony Brooks, who issued the ticket when Ose again refused to remove the flyer. The ticket charged him with placing a sign or notice on a utility pole in violation of a city ordinance.

It was referring to section 16-3 of the Town Code, which says "no signs or notices for advertising purposes shall be fastened or tacked to telephone, telegraph or electric light poles or trees on the streets or sidewalks."

Both officers were courteous, professional and surprised that someone was willing to spend time fighting the ordinance, said Ose, who added that he intends to contest the ticket in court on May 20.

The flyer ban is one of the most widely flouted ordinances in town, as a glance at any phone pole along Franklin and Rosemary streets would show. Ose is among the dozens of people who post announcements on them each day.

Many advertise political causes, but others promote businesses and concerts.

Town officials are just as energetic about removing them. The Public Works Department dispatches a landscaper each Sunday to strip flyers from phone poles and kiosks.

Postings in the kiosks are legal.

"We'd much rather that they be put there than stuck up on telephone poles or buildings," said Harv Howard, solid-waste services superintendent, who added that removal drives also precede major weekend events and festivals.

The town ordinarily maintains five kiosks, but it's been getting by with a couple less in recent years. Crews removed them during Streetscape sidewalk work.

Officials do intend to replace them - and the wooden kiosks that still remain elsewhere along Franklin Street - with steel-framed models designed to look better and stand up to vandals.

A public works crew will install the first steel kiosk next week on North Columbia Street, said Curtis Brooks, the town's urban forester.

The steel kiosks are being built by a Durham fabricator who charged the town $950 for the first one.

"If, as we anticipate, people feel it's an improvement over the older ones, we'll go ahead with the other five," Brooks said.

But while Ose said more kiosks are welcome, he still thinks the council should repeal the flier ban.

"The utility poles exist," he said. "What else are they really used for? They're a natural venue for free speech."

Ose's challenge to the flyer ban comes as officials are considering changes to another section of town law that also regulates signs.

The review - and a parallel enforcement suspension - began following September's "Woe to Our Enemies" flap involving East Franklin Street restaurant owner Scott Maitland and the town's Inspections Department.

Inspectors made Maitland take down a banner expressing his views on the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

They said it was too large, but the order drew fierce protests because it came while three council members were in the process of complaining to Horton about the banner's message.

Officials subsequently agreed that parts of the sign law are vulnerable to challenge, and are in the process of scheduling a hearing to gather advice on how to change it.

The president of the American Civil Liberties Union's Chapel Hill-Carrboro chapter, Mark Dorosin, said the flyer ban might raise similar issues.

While court cases say local governments can impose reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions on speech, they frown on any attempt to regulate content.

Since the flyer ban refers specifically to advertising, its wording could signal a content restriction, Dorosin said.

The code has one other potential problem, because it allows Horton to waive the posting ban for "temporary signs."

"What does that mean, and what is he basing that exercise of discretion on? If it's content based, it's constitutionally suspect," Dorosin said. "Anything that creates a content-based restriction, where the problem is the message rather than the form the message is being delivered in, I would say creates First Amendment problems at the least."

Petition for the revision or repeal of Chapel Hill Ordinance Sec. 16-3. (Placing notices, signs on utility poles, trees, prohibited; exception.)

Statement to Chapel Hill Town Council, April 8, 2002

Good evening, Mayor Foy and members of the Council.

My name is Erik Ose, and I’d like to respectfully request that the Town Council examine an existing city ordinance, Sec. 16.3 of the Code of Ordinances, in order to revise or repeal it.

I've been a resident of Chapel Hill for the past twelve years, and owned a business in town for the past five. During that time, I've always been one of those people you see around town hanging flyers and posters up for one cause or another. I've probably hung tens of thousands of flyers in Chapel Hill while I've lived here, so flyering is something I know a little about.

Last Thursday I was hanging posters on Franklin Street for a Banquet for Global Peace and Justice that was being held that night at the New Century Center in Carrboro. This event was sponsored by three local groups, the UNC Campaign to End The Cycle of Violence, the Triangle Free Press, and the Internationalist Books and Community Center. It drew over 150 local peace and social justice activists together for a night proclaiming that another world is truly possible if we dare to dream. Celebrating the idea of a world free from violence, hatred, and injustice. This banquet raised over $2500 towards those goals.

I was in front of the Franklin Street post office, and had just finished stapling two posters for the event onto a telephone pole there at the corner. A visible spot, where the poster was likely to be seen be many people walking or driving by. It's irrelevant, really, what the poster I was hanging said. It could have been raising awareness about any number of other causes, or it could have been a poster for my own business, or for one of the several other small, locally owned businesses that I occasionally hang signs for, as a gesture of support for other small stores like my own. The fact that it was a political message I was distributing and not a commercial one just makes what happened next even more disturbing.

I was questioned, detained, and eventually cited by a Chapel Hill police officer and sergeant for the simple act of having stapled this poster up to a telephone pole, and refusing to tear the poster down when told to by the officer. The officers were very polite and courteous to me, and explained to me that they really didn't want to write me up, they were just doing their jobs and enforcing Chapel Hill city ordinance Section 16.3, which prohibits the placing of signs or notices on utility poles. I didn't feel threatened or intimidated by them at any time during our encounter. But the fact remains that I was detained, cited, and threatened with arrest and being hauled before a magistrate if I was seen putting any more flyers on telephone poles that day.

Both officers said they were surprised by my willingness to waste my time and money by being written up and having to go to court over this issue, when I could have simply done what everyone else they've ever caught in the act of postering on telephone poles does, namely, torn my own posters down, apologize, and go on to the next corner to put up more posters once the officers backs were turned.

But you know, who's fooling who here. Why should a citizen have to play cat and mouse games with the police when they're simply trying to publicize a worthy cause, or advertise their business, or speak out about an issue they care about by making a sign and posting it somewhere where their neighbors might actually see it?

This is a city ordinance that doesn't make sense. Anyone who thinks about it a minute should realize it's ill conceived, and needs revision or outright repeal.

Why does this ordinance exist in the first place? Was it drafted for aesthetic purposes? Is it designed to improve the town’s appearance by keeping utility poles bare? If so, it’s accomplishing exactly the opposite of what it was intended to do. Take a look at any one of the utility poles downtown located at major intersections. What looks better, a cold, barren pole littered with jagged, torn scraps of paper, or one covered with colorful, exciting posters representing the free exchange of ideas that’s so central to the very idea of what Chapel Hill is about?

Was it drafted to protect the utility poles from the ravages of staples and thumbtacks? Are the poles somehow in danger of falling down once a critical mass of staples accumulate on them? If so, the ordinance isn’t working. Look at the poles. They’re covered with staples. Citizens put flyers up on utility poles every day, and they’re going to keep doing it, unless there’s a cop on every corner ready to arrest them.

The question is, it is a sensible allocation of the town’s limited public resources to have the public works department relentlessly tearing down any posters that pop up on utility poles every few days? I don’t know how many public works employees are assigned to this task, or how frequently they carry out this duty, but they must be working pretty hard. Flyers get taken down from utility poles in the downtown area almost as soon as they’re posted. There’s a utility pole that sits right outside my store on Rosemary Street. Every day I post a flyer for my store on that pole, and lately, every next day, I come to work to find that flyer torn down. Now isn’t that a little ridiculous?

As a small business owner, I’m upset. Is Chapel Hill serious about maintaining the quality of life here by fostering a climate of support for small, locally owned businesses over huge, faceless, national chains? If so, this ordinance needs changing. An important real world effect of this ordinance is to make it harder for small businesses who can’t afford expensive newspaper and radio advertising campaigns to stay in business in Chapel Hill. Grassroots advertising by small, locally owned businesses in town is something we should be encouraging, not discouraging.

As a taxpayer, I’m upset. There’s got to be a better way for the town to keep the appearance of utility poles regulated, one that uses a little less of town employees time and energy. Maybe if the town cleared the poles once a month, or once a week, like they do the kiosks.

With respect to the kiosks, some people might say that by virtue of the town maintaining two kiosks in the downtown area where flyers can legally be posted, the town has every right to declare utility poles off limits to public posting. Let’s leave aside the fact that I can remember when there were no less than five kiosks downtown devoted to this very purpose.

I think the Council needs to take a hard look at whether speech is truly free if it’s restricted to one or two little areas in town. On any given day in Chapel Hill, people are on the move, going about their daily lives, and not necessarily stopping by the town-owned poster kiosks for their daily appointment with free speech. Bottom line, that’s why people put flyers on utility poles, because it’s where their messages have a realistic chance of being seen and heard.

That’s why I think the Council needs to revise or repeal this ordinance, because any time you restrict free speech, we would all hope it’s being done because of other considerations that are very important to the public welfare. And in this case, I can’t see the reasoning behind maintaining this ordinance as it’s now written, or how it helps makes Chapel Hill a better town to live in.

Stop and smell the posters

Ron Liberti, "Self-portrait"

The Chapel Hill News
May 12, 2000
By Marisa Brickman
Page B4

There's this poster hanging on kiosks and telephone poles that's been catching my eye for the past two weeks. Every time I pass the poster, I want to rip it down and take it home with me. The poster is tall and skinny, blue and white and has a really cute image of two little girls sharing a secret about a Three Stigmata show. Have you seen it?

Some people think posters are litter and others think they're art. I'm on the art tip. There is definitely a separation between an ugly advertisement and an aesthetically pleasing flyer.

I think we'd all agree that the mass-produced neon 8-by-10s posted anywhere and everywhere are eyesores. However, the screen-printed posters selectively placed in store windows and on the few remaining kiosks do nothing but beautify the city and make you do a double-take.

Screen-printing posters for rock shows has long been part of music scenes everywhere from San Francisco to Seattle to Chapel Hill. It makes sense because many accomplished musicians are also talented visual artists.

"Most of the people I know that screen-print have been in bands at some point; it tends to go hand in hand," said Casey Burns who has been screen-printing for the past nine years.

A lot of musicians screen-print their own posters. They understand their music and can most accurately represent their band's sound in a visual way.

Ron Liberti, who used to rate rock-show posters in a column for the 'zine Trash, has been screen-printing since 1988. He made them all when he played guitar with Pipe, and now he does all of the posters for his current band, Clok-Lok.

"The ones that people made with their own hands seem to lend more importance to the show and make it more of an occasion," he said. "Shows are important, and I try to put as much love and care into the posters as I do into the music."

One can only print so many posters, and the fancier they are, the more likely people will want them for their own. Just go visit the home of any local show-goer and you will most likely find at least one screen-printed show poster plastered on the wall and displayed as a piece of art.

Eric Cope, drummer for Three Stigmata and Hunter Gather, started screen-printing last summer, and his efforts have been nothing short of prolific.

"Screen-printed posters are better than photocopies because there's more love put into it. It's like a miniature painting - if someone sees it, they take it off a pole as a memento. Plus, it's a good way to remember a good show."

In order to promote a show, you almost need both. Photocopies aren't as pretty, but they help get the word out. And if everyone is taking the screen-prints home for souvenirs, double-teaming the promotion efforts have to help.

"The nicer looking ones get taken fast," said Burns. "It's a nice compliment, but you also want people to know about it, so I usually also make photocopies."

The areas where flyers may be placed have consistently dwindled over the past few years, leaving less and less space for legal flyering.

"In the seven years I've lived here, they put up kiosks as a solution to the problem of posters on telephone polls as sort of a compromise between rockers and city council," said Burns. "Since I've lived here I've seen a few of them disappear. There's only two or three now."

While most screen-printers seem to know the rules (no telephone poles or utility boxes), posters still appear almost any place they can be stapled. With the barrage of posters all concentrated in a few places, it drives the artist to seek out alternatives.

"I think your opportunities are limited only if you play by the rules. You shouldn't put them on anything alive, like trees, but if it's dead it's OK," said Liberti.

"People should be more original about where they put them," he added. "I once saw a flyer for a show in the beer cooler at Harris Teeter."

Other than the rules set out by the town of Chapel Hill, there seems to be a set of unwritten laws that respectable flyer posters abide by. When stapling up posters, it's important to check the date before you cover up someone else's hard work. And if you wallpaper kiosks with repetitive self-promoting propaganda, you'll do nothing but give yourself a bad reputation. That's not art, anyway.

Most people forget that art can be functional and aesthetically pleasing at the same time. If you haven't stopped to smell the posters, you should take the time to enjoy their visual pleasure before someone takes it home and puts it up in their kitchen.