and surprised me in a good way.
On the agenda of tonight's meeting were two related items that addressed temporary signs in the city.
[Note: a listing of commission members is here.]
Simple summaries:
12 TA 2006 - would ban temporary signs on public property and in public rights-of-way
13 TA 2006 - incorporates 12 TA 2006, and adds restrictions on temporary signs, including political signs, on private property.
(The city staff report on these proposals is here.)
My interest was in 13 TA 2006's impact on political signs. I was concerned with the "free speech" implications inherent in some of the restrictions.
Turns out that most of the commissioners had similar concerns.
To make a long story short, while the commissioners generally supported restrictions on temporary signs, political signs were almost the least of their concerns.
Off-site directional signs for subdivisions and master-planned communities were. (i.e. - the signs that say "drive this way for 5 miles to see our new homes for sale!")
While such signs can be issued a permit for 180 days, extendable for another 180 days (six months and six months), many have been up for six *years* or more. This has contributed to the fact that certain areas of Scottsdale and Pima Roads have a long-term 'visual pollution' problem.
Some folks in the area may have complained about political signs, but those truly are temporary, usually only up for 8 - 16 weeks.
The commissioners thought 13 TA 2006 was "too complex" (Steinke) or was beyond their "comfort level" (Barnett) but that 12 TA 2006 was "fairly rational" (Barnett again) and would support 12 TA 2006 with changes addressing off-site developer signs.
In the end, 13 TA 2006 was moved, but failed for lack of a second, while 12 TA 2006 was moved, amended, and passed, striking sections 8.604 and 8.615 of the city's sign code. Those sections specifically allowed with MPC and subdivision directional signs. At the end of the meeting, a motion was made to deny 13 TA 2006; it passed without dissent. Apparently, they wanted to make sure that they were on record as being against it.
Commissioner Schwartz expressed some reservations about including such a "sweeping change" without including a representative from the developers. It was noted by another commissioner that this whole thing has been under discussion "for months."
It was noted that even if the City Council lends final approval to these changes, existing permitted signs could continue through the life of their permits.
So, all in all, it was a good, even encouraging, meeting - not only did the Commission members actually discuss the issues with each other, city staff, and the public, they *listened* to each other and worked to address concerns.
If you want to understand why this was a "pleasant" surprise for me, watch a Congressional debate or even a Scottsdale City Council meeting on TV.
Of all the activities during those debates and meetings, "listening" has the lowest priority. At those, everybody involved has made up their minds even before the start of the meeting; the 'debate' is all about getting their faces on TV and their words on the record.
Anyway, the City Council has this on its agenda for its March 20th meeting, and given that this issue was sent to the Planning Commission on September 19, 2006 specifically to address political signs, I wouldn't be shocked if the Council moves to put the political signs language back into the ordinance.
Oh, and given the Council's nearly-complete obeisance to developers, I fully expect that the recommended removal of the code sections allowing off-site signs will be overridden.
Not that I'm a cynic or anything. :)
Other notes from the meeting:
...In not-very-surprising news for next year's city council race, local activist Joel Bramoweth has officially announced his candidacy. It's not very surprising because I've attended 5 City Council meetings and he has been at all 5, usually with something to say. He was even at tonight's Planning Commission meeting.
[Note to Mr. Bramoweth: this is just a suggestion, but when you sign up to speak at a public meeting on a specific topic, keep your speech germane to the topic. Your speech wasn't *too* bad, but it was too long and veered from "informing" to "campaigning." If you had cut out the "this is what I'll do as a Council member" stuff, your speech would have come in on time and on topic.
Plus, in this sort of environment, the best campaign speech is one that *isn't* a campaign speech. Display your knowledge and thoughtfulness, not your verbosity.
If you want to be verbose, start a blog. :)) ]
...I asked the city staffers that were present if this (12 TA 2006) had any Prop 207 implications. Since it only affects public property and rights-of-way, apparently it does not.
Good night!
2 comments:
This is something we had to deal with during the campaign, it was annoying but understandable. I hope that they keep it the way it is for political signs, I just don’t think that someone’s political expression should be eliminated all together. The restrictions in place now make sense, it seems like they just need to be enforced.
It is too bad no-one seems to understand the issue of the First Amendment rights when they are violated by bad ordinances.
Sine the city has not reviewed the issue of " sign context" between commercial and political signs and since the city allows special selection of cetain signs, they have now thrown their entier sign ordinance in the dumps if they get a legal challenge to the ordinance as it is worded and the fact is, case history on issue like this with sign context issues, the city will lose their butts and not only that, but it now opens the door for the entire sing ordinaince to be struck down by the courts as if any portion of the ordinance is claimed to be a violation of the First Amendment, then the whol sign code has to undergo a review and changes.
This is not what the city should have done as they have now opened the door to a problem bigger than they wanted.
Post a Comment