I actually agreed with some Republicans.
No, this isn't about Bush's plan to send 21,000 more targets to Iraq to support his War to Aid Halliburton's Bottom Line.
Nope. Instead of watching the President's speech on TV, I went to the Planning Commission meeting in Scottsdale where they were considering changes to the sign ordinance that would ban political and other temporary signs on public property and in rights-of-way (ROW), and impose restrictions on their placement on private property.
There were two, related, items under consideration - 12-TA-2006 (just the public property/ROW ban) and 13-TA-2006 (the ban plus the private property restrictions.)
The basic ban would prohibit placement of temporary signs on public property and in rights-of-way, except for government, safety, street, and traffic control/direction signs. Also exempted would be banner signs for special events on held on public property.
The restrictions on signs placed on private property include reducing the maximum size to 8 square feet, requiring that they be placed perpendicular to the road and be placed at least 10 feet apart in orderly rows.
The people who spoke in support of the proposed restrictions used words like "clutter", "ugly", "unsightly" with the occasional mention of "safety."
The part where the Devil had to put on a sweater and earmuffs?
Royce Flora and Travis Junion, respectively, the chair and vice-chair of the LD8 Republicans, spoke out against the changes.
Flora expressed support for the public property/ROW ban because of safety considerations. However, he was utterly opposed to the restrictions proposed for private property. He cited free speech and private property rights concerns, and advised the commissioners that he would push for legislative relief if the City enacted such restrictions.
Junion read a letter from Sen. Carolyn Allen (R-LD8), who was unable to attend due to legislative duties, opposing private property restrictions.
I may not ever have reason to say this about two very conservative Republicans again, but
THEY WERE RIGHT.
No one in the room tonight, including me, has a problem with addressing safety concerns. Even those of us who are 'political' have to drive here, and clean sight lines aren't a luxury, they're a necessity.
However, in regards to the private property restrictions, "aesthetic considerations" are trumped by free speech considerations.
The Constitution protects free expression, but nowhere does it require that free expression be "orderly" or "aesthetically-pleasing."
During the discussion, there were concerns expressed about "offsite development" signs, signs that advertise a given housing development and are supposed to be temporary (< 1 year in duration) but are still up 5 years or more later.
Individual commissioners expressed support for 12-TA-2006 but had some reservations. None expressed support for 13-TA-2006. When Commissioner Steinke made a motion to recommend 12-TA-2006 to the City Council, the motion died for lack of a second.
After a few more minutes of discussion, the Commission decided to continue the measures in order to study them at a January 24th Study Session, and to re-agendize them at the February 14 meeting of the Planning Commission.
The interesting part of that process was the way Frank Gray, General Manager of the Planning and Development Services Department, made sure that the Commission didn't kill 13-TA-2006 by subtly strong-arming them into continuing both items, not just the one they "sort of" liked.
While the Commission delayed action, and certainly did not seem enthusiastic about the private property signage restrictions, this isn't dead yet. Judging from Mr. Gray's efforts to keep alive the proposed restrictions, somewhere inside the city government, there is a strong desire for them.
While I can't attend the January 24th study session, I'll try to make it to the February meeting.
If this (the private property restrictions) makes it to the City Council, I'll contact the LD17 legislators and ask them if they could make an appearance, or, as Sen. Allen did, send a letter expressing their position on this subject.
Good night!
No comments:
Post a Comment