Commissioner Langstaff asked what was the minimum that a sign ordinance could do that would still achieve the stated goal of not deterring business (I sincerely doubt it would do a thing to attract business, but I’ll concede the possibility it may deter). Now, this is hardly an easy task, since what I think is acceptable is hardly going to be universal. That said, I’m still going to pose my own plan for a new sign ordinance. However, and hopefully more realistically, I’m also going to propose a couple of changes that may make the current ordinance a little easier for local businesses to deal with.
Tom’s Plan:
Alright boys and girls, here is the big plan. First, all signs must be in good repair. This means rusted signs should be sanded and painted (something an owner could theoretically do themselves) and cloth signs shouldn’t be ripped. Pretty simple, right?
Next, no sign should be placed on the public right of way. While I disagree with right of ways for various reasons, in this case it will successfully serve to clean up the area right next to the street. You can still have them, and they can say what you want within reason, but they can’t be right next to the road. Period.
Signs must not contain anything that could be honestly described as “porn”. Yeah, that’s kind of vague, and the community standards are probably already codified somewhere in the municipal code, so those are more applicable here. Basically, nothing goes up you don’t want your kid to read.
Portable signs can be used for no longer than 14 days in a stretch, and then may not be used for within 30 days afterwards. This will let businesses bring in portable signs for temporary use when needed, but it keeps them from being all over the place like they were once upon a time.
That’s it. Frankly, I’m not even that crazy about most of these. However, that’s my compromise offer for a new sign ordinance. I believe that it would achieve the desired results without putting undue pressure on business owners. Of course, I’ll admit I could be wrong.
Now, I honestly don’t believe that this will ever happen. Government is notorious for not moving backwards, so I won’t be holding my breath. However, I do have some suggestions that I feel would go a long way in helping fix this problem with the current sign ordinance.
Tom’s Fixes:
First, let’s take into account what’s been going on. Bo Henry makes an excellent point in regards to his second ground sign. It’s been there for a long time, plus he just had it inspected about 18 months ago. What we truly need, rather than a grace period, is a grandfather clause. Let Harvest Moon keep their second sign, as well as any other current business, but require new businesses to meet the standard. With the turn over rate in businesses, you’ll soon get rid of most of them, and many of those who don’t shut down will move, and that would remove the grandfather clause. You’ll get what you want, but by attrition instead of force.
Second, remove the rule about how much of a businesses windows can be covered, so long as the windows can still serve as an escape route in the event of fire or other disaster. Pier One, a big box store, uses signs on their windows all over the nation, and it has never made that part of Northwest Albany look “junky” or anything else. You’re already limiting their signage in significant other ways, so let them advertise on their windows.
Third, have a variance committee made up of an odd number of citizens who serve on a volunteer basis only. Anyone who, for whatever reason, feels they need a variance on the sign ordinance on either a temporary or permanent basis can go before the committee and apply for that variance. They should be appointed by the City Commission and meet on a regular and frequent basis. By frequent I mean weekly, bi-weekly, something like that so someone who needs a variance for a temporary event can get one in a timely manner. However, great pains needs to be taken to minimize the expenses for this. Some copying for variance applications, etc, and nothing more than the essentials. I’m not crazy about increasing the size of government, but there doesn’t seem a fair way to do so otherwise, and I’m trying to be pragmatic about this.
Conclusion
I’m not a fan of the sign ordinance, and I never have been. Commissioner Langstaff’s argument that it may deter business to come to town may well be dead on right, so I’ll concede it for now, so a sign ordinance is here and should be enforced since it’s the law. However, if you’re going to have a sign ordinance, it needs to be friendly to businesses that are already here. Hoping to lure new jobs to Albany is wonderful, but the vast majority of people are employed by small businesses or chain stores. These are truly the life’s blood of Albany’s economy, so it makes sense to do what you can to be fair to them.
It is my most sincere hope that the Albany City Commission will read these and impliment at least the fixes I propose, or something similar, if nothing else.
You got my vote, Tom. Try to get these guys to support something this simple, though.
I’m really so pessimistic about Albany that I think the mindset of these sign ordinance supporters is that it won’t work unless it hurts someone’s business.
Well Jack, let’s give them a chance. It’s entirely possible that all these plans could get implemented, with much fan fare. It’s also possible that just a couple of them could get implemented, and that would be a move in the right direction. But it wouldn’t be a bad idea for all the residents of Albany to email this to their city commissioner with a heartfelt recommendation to make it happen. I can write it, but unless the people of Albany get behind it, there’s not a huge chance of it happening.
More idiocy:
http://www.walb.com/global/story.asp?s=10527084
And a Coca-Cola or Budweiser truck is not a “rolling billboard” when it rides around town making deliveries?
One other point: Note that Tilson (evidently through a Freudian slip) gave up the fact that a Junior League crank such as Judy Bowles is calling the shots here. Perhaps if the people on our wonderful city commission were less concerned with the opinions of busybodies like Ms. Bowles and more concerned with economic reality, we wouldn’t be suffering further damage from this kind of insanity.
Bob, did you read the ordinance before you voted for it??
Yeah, that’s pretty messed up as well.
Where Moe’s parks their truck also happens to be a good place to park it without getting in the way of their customers. That it happens to be on the road should be irrelevant.
However Jack, Tilson didn’t actually say any such thing. All that we know is that he has been in contact with Judy Bowles, and that she’s pleased with the results. Let’s not read into it. While Bowles may indeed be calling shots, it was the city commission that passed the law, and Tilson is the one charged with enforcing it. Judy Bowles isn’t a commissioner, nor is she in charge of Code Enforcement, so there needs to be a little bit more there to be able to make such an accusation.
Tom. Judy Bowles is the unelected appointee that heads the Keep Albany Dougherty Beautiful Commission. She was appointed to this position by the city and county commission because of her connections (read money and social circle–not experience or suitability). Check the minutes from the “sign task force” meeting.
http://www.albany.ga.us/pd/documents/Sign%20Code%20Task%20Force%20Jan.%208,%202008.pdf
People like Judy Bowles and various Doublegate fruitcakes and Junior League anorexics formulate this garbage and force feed it on small business. Our commissions who appoint these people then disclaim responsibility for the results. Trust me–the pistol packing dwarf Tilson knows exactly who he’s beholden to. I’m just surprised he admitted it publicly.
However, Judy Bowles isn’t the only appointed to various committees within the city. There’s a pile of them. And while Tilson might be “beholden” to her, he didn’t actually say it. A member of the Clean Community Commission simply called the head of Code Enforcement about something that actually makes an impact on her commission.
It’s fine to think it, and you may well be 100% correct. But my point was only that he didn’t actually say anything about answering to Bowles.
Tom, let me disagree with you here. I posted the minutes of that “sign task force” meeting for a reason. Please read it carefully. Note that not a single elected official was in attendance. Note also that that meeting was to formulate the ordinance that people like Tilson are suposed to enforce, so she did a lot more than just call him. These are the people that formulated this monstrosity and forwarded to the commission for a vote (after they read it–hopefully).
Note also that this is consistent with a pattern of appointing persons to these positions who then have vast impact on the local economy (see ATI, ADICA, etc.). This allows the commissioners to say “it was out of our hands–we didn’t do it, this board or that board did it, etc.”
With specific reference to Bowles, what are her qualifications to sit on this board? Who were the other parties considered for the position? When does her term expire? Why can’t her board be shut down? How many persons on this board actually have jobs that aren’t governmental or Phoebe-related (though you could be justified in confusing the two given their incestuous relationship)?
Jack, I’m not doubting the minutes, because I haven’t been able to read them yet. My computer was acting up this morning for some reason, and I’m unable to access them right now. Hopefully I’ll be able to take a look at them later though, so thanks for posting those.
I’ve gone on the record as having an issue with the ordinance from the start. My only point was to avoid talking about a conspiracy where none was directly indicated.