Residents told the City Council Aug. 20 that a staff notification asking candidates to remove political signs had been ambiguous and unevenly enforced, and urged the city to avoid regulating political speech on private yards.

Multiple speakers said the city'issued letter and brief sign brochure were unclear about whether the unified development ordinance'(U DO) temporary-sign limits apply on private property. Residents said the ambiguous messaging contributed to selective enforcement and the perception of government overreach.

Long-time Lansing resident Stephanie Pierce told the council she brought her daughter to the meeting to emphasize constitutional concerns. "When the government takes an unclear rule and twist it into a reason to limit citizens' rights, that's overreach," Pierce said. She and other speakers cited court precedent in their remarks; one woman referenced the 1994 federal case identified in the meeting as City of Ladue v. Gilleo as grounding the argument that residential sign restrictions raise First Amendment issues.

Kirsten Markman, who said she had kept other temporary signs in her yard for years without enforcement, asked the city to publish a clear, consistent standard and avoid content-based application of the code. "If you're gonna take it upon yourself as a city to regulate speech using time limits or exempting certain categories of signage, then it should take caution to communicate those regulations clearly and enforce them consistently," Markman said.

Staff and council members responded that the city's Unified Development Ordinance (adopted in 2019) contains a 90-day limit on temporary signs and that the state law was changed to limit local control over political signs around elections. Staff described the relevant state provision during the discussion and said different Kansas jurisdictions have interpreted the statute in different ways; meeting participants referenced the statute as "25-27-11" (as stated in the record) and also discussed a 45'to'47'day window described in public comments. Legal counsel will be asked for a formal reading.

Practical outcome: staff told the council it would attempt to follow the city's prior enforcement practice for this election cycle to maintain consistency and will return after the election with proposed clarifications if the council wants to amend the ordinance. Councilmembers and staff emphasized that the city will continue to enforce signs in public rights-of-way for safety and sight-line concerns.

Why this matters: residents raised free-speech and equal-treatment concerns; staff raised compliance and public-safety concerns about signs in the right-of-way. The council directed staff to be consistent in enforcement this cycle and to pursue legal clarification and possible ordinance edits afterward.