Yesterday, Albany City Commissioner Roger Marietta stated to WALB his feelings that the city should consider a six month moratorium on sign ordinace enforcement to give the City Commission a chance to fix the current problems in the ordinance. Frankly, I like it.
I’m hard on any and every City Commissioner. As a member of the media, and the opinion media in particular, it’s kind of my self-appointed job to do that. However, I try to be fair. Commissioner Marietta’s suggestion is a good idea for several reasons.
First, there’s the simple fact that going with a moratorium means that people won’t get caught up in a law that commissioners already know has problems but hasn’t been able to fix just yet. That’s ridiculous, and I think everyone understands that. By taking six months off from enforcement to revisit this and pass some sensible reform, those folks who would get caught up have some breathing room.
The second thing, and possibly the most important, is that it gives local businesses some breathing room to help weather this economy better. By allowing them to advertise, those who are well run and agile should function just fine until the economy improves, or at least build up some funds to weather what’s left after the moratorium runs out (assuming no meaningful reform is passed). Companies can advertise in the most cost effective way, and that’s not newspaper ads or commercials on local TV stations.
It’s my most sincere hope that this moratorium is passed as soon as humanly possible for the betterment of local businesses. Failure to do so could be detrimental for a whole host of businesses, and we really can’t afford it right now.
It sounds like Commissioner Marietta was willing to listen to the concerns of the local businesses and offered a short term solution to their problem while the Commission revisits the issue and hopefully comes up with something a lot more workable. It’s probably to much to hope that the sign ordinance will die a glorious, fiery death, but I’ll take what I can get.
I agree that the moratorium is a good suggestion until things are ironed out. However, instead of “tweaking” the ordinance – I wish the commission would consider rescinding it altogether. Here is my idea of a tweaked sign ordinance:
No sign may be displayed within the city limits which:
(1) displays pornography;
(2) is a safety hazard; or
(3) interferes with the property rights of neighbors.
Since these points are already covered under general nuisance statutes, I think it would be a bold move to simply dump the unnecessary sign ordinance. I wish the commission would seriously consider it. Businesses and citizens who enjoy freedom would applaud it. It would send the signal that the commission is not iron-fisted and is responsive to the public.
I’ve got to quit daydreaming.
Don’t worry Cartman, I’m daydreaming too. Personally, I’m right there with you. From the earliest days of the sign ordinance, I’ve always seen this as a property rights issue…something that the city commission doesn’t seem to agree with. I’ve offered my own solution, not just a new sign ordiances but some changes to make to the current one here.
Frankly, it’s just stupid to penalize businesses who try and advertise in a poor economy because someone thinks it’s less than attractive. It’s absolutely ridiculous.
Tom, you are right on the money. It is about property rights. A business should be able to do whatever they wish on their own property. Our nation prospered for 200 years without municipal sign ordinances.
I looked at your proposed ordinance and certainly like it better than that of the City. It is an attempt to accomplish the city’s purpose while attempting to avoid being burdensome on the citizen.
To me, the real rub is more basic and can’t simply be compromised away. Government shouldn’t run other people’s businesses. And you can’t legislate good taste – nor should you. I should be able to decorate my business as I desire, even if a commissioner considers it a tacky eyesore. If my customers think its ugly, they will avoid it. It seems that the public has conceded a “Homeowners Association” mentality where someone can dictate the color of your house and the size of your American flag. I call BS on all of it.
If Bo Henry wants to put up a sign that make the Moon look like Jethro Bodine’s “The Happy Gizzard” diner, then it is his right. It is only the city’s business if the sign is low enough to block the view of folks pulling back out onto Dawson Road or some other legitimate safety reason. If car dealerships want a big American flag, they shouldn’t have to relocate to Lee County to fly it. If smaller car lots want triangular pennants like they have only used for the past 100 years, then I say hang away.
Although the tough economic times underscores the damage of over-regulation – I think its a bad idea even in good times. And that’s why I’m more in favor of “Rescinding” rather than “Tweaking” the sign ordinance.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor or getting rid of the whole blasted thing. But I’m also pretty sure that the City Commission won’t consider getting rid of the ordinance based on comments by various commissioners. The “tweaking” part proposal was put in there to try and at least mitigate the disastrous effects of this ordinance.
I want the whole thing gone, unless it’s a safety issue like you’ve pointed out. Frankly, of Albany looks tacky as a whole, so what? I really can’t imagine a business coming to town, look around for a couple of days, and say “well, we don’t mind the high crime rate, the number of gangs, or any of the rest of that kind of thing…but this town isn’t attractive, so we’re going elsewhere.” I just don’t see it happening.
As for the regulations, you’re right though…they’re a bad idea even in good times. Regulations tend to favor well known companies over small business. The sign ordinance favors Burger King over Roosters, for example (I spoke with Rooster’s management yesterday about the sign ordinance as a matter of fact). Everyone knows what kind of specials Burger King is running at breakfast time. Roosters, on the other hand, is limited to what they can fit on their ONE sign…which may not be enough to advertise all their deals.
I plan on writing more about this aspect in my noon post. Please come check it out!
The prime movers of the current sign ordinance forget one important fact: Dougherty County and the City of Albany benefit to the tune of 3% of all retail sales in the county. Sales totals are proven to be in direct proportion to positive advertising, no matter what method is applied, even stick up directional signs, now forbidden, such as those we use in our estate sale business.
Great point. Just another example of how they’re cutting their own throats with this ridiculous law.
I would reiterate that the “prime movers” of this ordinance (read: Judy Bowles, etc.), have no business crafting laws that impact the local economy so negatively. That’s the root of this problem.
And that point is easily conceded. Unfortunately, that’s the law as it stands now, so it’s time to get something fixed. I like the idea of suspending enforcement for six months while it’s looked at, this time with business and community input. Of course, Commissioner Gurr seems to feel that it should be left in place while it’s being looked at, which is ridiculous in my opinion. If you know it’s broken, don’t leave it up to screw up local business…you remove the roadblocks and let freedom reign for a little while.
I’d almost be willing to bet money that the economy in Albany will improve shortly after the moratorium is put into effect, if that’s the route they decide to go.
Tom, my point is a little more nuanced than this. Having it “looked at” by the same crew that created this debacle is a bad joke.
Why not get responsible people like Bo Henry and David Maschke together and have them create an ordinance that’s pro-business? Judy Bowles and her ilk don’t think an ordinance is effective if someone isn’t being hurt by it. That’s NOT the mentality we need.
I’m trying to give the City Commission the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they’ll create a new body that includes business leaders from around the community. For what it’s worth, I’d be happy to help out a new panel that includes business leaders as just some schmuck from the community.
I think it’s safe to say that the last task force botched the job and even the commission is seeing that. I can’t help but think that they would understand that putting the same people on the board that botched the job in the first place would be ridiculous.