Clearly, oversized signs are not the major problem in Providence, we can go into a lot of other things there. However, this issue seems indicative of a certain candidate and his history and how he continues to comport himself during the campaign. I think if you’re running for mayor of a city, you should both be aware of and follow all ordinances of the city. So my question then is why is the city of Providence allowing Vincent Cianci to keep signs up that are clearly out of compliance with the city ordinance? Why are they turning a blind eye to it? What is the purpose of having laws if they are not going to be followed? Wouldn’t the lesson here be that if Cianci is elected, and he didn’t have to follow all the laws, then I shouldn’t have to either. I too can pick and choose which Providence laws/ordinances I choose to follow, as did he. Who hasn’t seen those near billboard size signs around the city, yet the ordinance (602.6 (D))reads:

Political signs, non-illuminated, incidental to a city, state, or federal election or
referendum, or signs which are political in nature. Such signs shall be constructed
of durable material, and shall be prohibited from trees, traffic signs or utility
poles. Such signs shall be erected not more than 60 days prior to such election or
referendum, or in any event, no premises shall have a sign erected for more than
120 days in any calendar year. Political signs relating to any election or
referendum shall be removed within fourteen (14) days after said election or
referendum. In all R Zones, such signs shall not to exceed sixteen (16) square
feet in area per side.

Earlier, Republican candidate for mayor Dan Harrop, sent a complaint to the Providence solicitor, and reportedly the one instance that Harrop complained about was removed. Why isn’t the city removing all of them?

Providence needs to expect better and demand better than this. As long as this is the attitude around here, things will never be any different.