Ms. Marie Adair (letters, April 24), I think you misinterpreted my April 21 letter, seems you are going off on a tangent. I’m not sure how you tied my opinion about litter to “The anti-strong mayor campaigners.”

I fully support an informed electorate and encourage involvement and financial support of the candidate one believes in. Great to hear you feel strongly enough about Mr. Jim Ferrell’s signs to send him a check “for more signs to put out there.” Please consider sending additional funds to help him remove the signs after the election.

What I’m advocating is a time limit of when the campaign signs can be placed throughout the city. I agree campaign signs are informative but the number of signs, to me, does not indicate “how serious the candidate intends pursuit of the position,” as you state. I think it’s probably more indicative of the depth of the candidate’s campaign coffers.

I believe the longer campaign signs are left out, the less people pay attention to them. The signs become part of the background vs. something new that shows up and catches people’s attention during a campaign. I think when new campaign signs appear at an appropriate time before the election, it catches the eye of the citizens who can at that point, as you say, do further research and vote for whom they believe is the best candidate.

Your correlation of retail signs with campaign signs to me is not accurate. Retailers are in business year-round, whereas campaigns run for a few months out of a year. My view is that the ordinance on retail signs is a good thing for aesthetics and makes the city look cleaner and a nice place to live in. But please, let’s not go off on another tangent with this topic.

Again my comment was about litter not about the process of selecting a mayor. It was not about the style of signs, the placement of signs, or who the signs support, but it was about the duration they are in the environment.

Kathie Curran, Federal Way