First of all the city of Salem makes you jump through hoops to just apply for a permit:
•photos of the building •drawings of the sign and method of attachment •color samples •rendering of placement of the sign (I usually superimpose the drawing on the photos) •a full page permit application including liner footage of the building and property, signature of building owner, sign contractor & sign owner.
and they want SIX copies of everything! then they only meet once a month. then the 4 members of the city planning dept. and 2 architects sit around a table a 'review' the application. This particular time seemed like a cut and dry application, a building with 8 existing sign frames on it, which will accept a 3/4" MDO sign 27" x 35" the new tenant is an existing customer of mine and has a hair salon in the next town over. First she had to get the design approved by Aveda corporate headquarters who have specific guidelines for all their salons nationwide, once they picked 1 of 4 drawings we submitted it to Salem's DRB, waited a month to be told the design was 'boring' and that the letters should either be carved in or raised. The sign is black with white letters. So I get a phone call this morning from the head moron at the DRB asking if its possible to do this. I ask "how will carving the letters in or raising the letters off make the layout less "boring", then she proceeds to ask if the sign is 3/4" can't you incise the letter 1/4" on both sides?" I said ummmm, no.... she asks "can we do raised letters?" I say ummm.... why? a white letter on a black background is only going to cost my customer more money and is still gong to be "boring" and for that matter is it really your job yo desiced a vendors image? she should be allowed a "boring" sign if thats what she wants, you should only be able to judge wether the design is acceptable according to the sign bylaws written in 1973, and has no profanity or flashing lights etc.... "boring" is a personal opinion, and should not be imposed on a indivual business. Anyway, I don't think Kirsten at the DRB likes me anymore, and now my customer has to wait another month to resubmit a new 'less boring' design. Good Grief!
[ December 05, 2007, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: captain ken ]
Posted by Darcy Baker (Member # 8262) on :
I feel your pain. Same deal here.Morons need to get a life.I think they love their job because it gives them a feeling of power in their impotent little lives....
Posted by Anne McDonald (Member # 6842) on :
I am sure that some positions in government agencies feel they have to justify themselves with this kind of behaiviour. It is certainly a universal trait!!
Posted by David Harding (Member # 108) on :
I once went through a similar several month process with completely incompetent personnel reviewing things.
I griped to my father about it and he put things in perspective when he told me: "Be thankful. In some parts of the world, the people you are dealing with will have guns strapped to their sides."
Posted by Darcy Baker (Member # 8262) on :
David, should I have not been "strapped" when I went in the courthouse? I thought it might have carried some weight for consideration.
Posted by Tony Teveris (Member # 2911) on :
Come on Ken, your in "moonbat" country.
Posted by David Harding (Member # 108) on :
Darcy, nowadays the people around here who enter courthouses "strapped" usually leave strapped to a gurney.
Posted by Darcy Baker (Member # 8262) on :
Hey now... i resemble that remark
Posted by Dana Stanley (Member # 6786) on :
I can't believe that city clerks think they have a right to ask you to do anything more than conform to specified guidelines. Imposing there own artistic tastes is too much. Simple boring and easy to read is sometimes just right.
Suppose they don't like a companies logo. Do they need to redesign it?
Posted by stein Saether (Member # 430) on :
architects = building ingeniors pretending to be artists
Posted by Darcy Baker (Member # 8262) on :
Common Sense ISN'T!
Posted by Alicia B. Jennings (Member # 1272) on :
I'd love to be on a city Sign design review board, Where do I sign up?
Posted by Rick Sacks (Member # 379) on :
We have a similar process here, but a bit more complicated. More copies and done at a public meeting where the general public also interjects opinions that have weight. I know some of the things they attack and try to always include one in my proposal as a target for them to apply their pressure allowing the compromise to get what is reasonable. They get to exercise their power trip and the customer gets the sign and I find it my favorite sport.
Posted by Dale Feicke (Member # 767) on :
Usually, these design review boards are occupied by a bunch of politician-wanna-be's, totally caught up in themselves, and revelling in the power they sometimes have.
Bottom line, it's all about the money. So many areas of the country, particularly the coastal cities, and places like yours, Darcy, where the tourist trade thrives, have taken to licensing or permitting everything they can. What started out to be simply a system to regulate the quality of a product or service; or legislate some conformity in terms of size, shape or location of a sign (or tree or whatever) has shown to be a money-maker for these municipalities....and they continue to strive for new ways to exploit this newfound source of wealth.
I love it in Eureka Springs, Darcy. And the way the downtown area is, with the close-in buildings and narrow streets, I can understand why there is legislation required. You keep on 'em though...and don't let them do anything to change it. At least from an outsider's point of view, it's one cool place to visit.
Posted by Darcy Baker (Member # 8262) on :
Rick, you are the sneaky one, I'm gonna get some smoke bombs and polish up my mirrors........Dale, I agree with you about this place and even the sign ordinance.My only beef is when the arbitrary decisions are made not following guidelines prevent a customer from getting their sign.I'll probably do what I do now which is just make signs and let each customer present their case.Low profile seems to create fewer waves and is best for my blood pressure.
Posted by bruce ward (Member # 1289) on :
wow, why do you guys even get permits.
down here we walk in city hall and say we putting a sign up at elm st, heres my 15 bucks. DONE! (most of the time)
I dont know how oyu tolderate all that crap? who the hell comes up with this stuff? I tell you, IDIOTS! with nothing better to do. I wouldnt even pull a permit.
Posted by Paul Bierce (Member # 5412) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dana Stanley: Suppose they don't like a companies logo. Do they need to redesign it?
I think the answer is "Yes".
I've seen numerous occasions where a McDonalds in a historic area was only allowed there because it "doesn't look like a McDonalds". The sign out front is typically carved with gold leaf Times lettering that looks nothing like the standard logo.
Posted by Rick Sacks (Member # 379) on :
I like regulation to protect unique character of districts. The decisions are tough calls to make and often not how I would do it, but it's not me on the board. Remove the zoning and get a free for all hodge podge mess that looks like somewhere we all want to get away from. I have a concern about the longer term welfare of our community than that of an individual merchants success. I want to be building the place I want to spend my life in. Sometimes that means slowing everything down, including my income.
Posted by Gene Golden (Member # 3934) on :
Here are a couple of issues I have responded to previously in Letterville. I really don't think anyone reads them. I realize a lot of people would rather cry the blues here on this Forum, rather than buck the system. I choose to fight, because I feel I am right. The ISA has a great deal of information that I RECOMMEND that everyone here should study.
I also realize that MANY/MOST of you won't even bother to read past the last few lines. So be it. It seems like you don't think to read it until you're in a battle with some idiots. A few minutes here will save you an UNBELIEVABLE amount of time later.
Previous Posts: "Zoning will have some control over the business allowed within a certain district. But, once the business is in place, zoning is a moot point.
Signage is NOT a zoning issue, it is a First Amendment issue. Once a business is allowed to exist, it is in the best interest of the community to help it survive. Allow proper signage with proper visibility and lighting and give them the best chance at making a living. If a district is Zoned Commercial then it is contrary to common business sense to restrict their speech.
If they don't want the businesses, then rezone the damn district."
And this, which is slightly different: "If the signs are just basically a change of copy, and the sizes are remaining the same,I would go ahead and do the changes. It is a speech issue, not a zoning issue. What the sign says is none of their business as long as it is not "unconstitutional" speech (pornographic, inciting, etc. If the signs are already legal, then the new signs will be also, just with a different message (First Amendment if you ask me). But I am more willing to push those limits of legality. If it's outside of your comfort zone, then by all means, don't proceed.
But... you can always letter the trucks and get your foot in the door. Something is better than nothing."
And this one: "Can't help you yet, but after 2 years, and getting the ISA involved, I am JUST NOW finally sitting down with the Counselor for Gettysburg Borough trying to hammer out a Legal Ordinance.
Most of the Ordinances are unenforceable because of many different reasons. The thing that happens goes like this: Gettysburg "borrows" an ordinance from an historic town elsewhere. That town borrowed from another. Each adds its own little illegality to it and before you know it, the Constitution is bastardized to the point it is no longer incorporated in the Ordinance... or enforceable. But, until it is challenged, it IS their law and they WILL enforce it.
Each municipality that unfortunately cannibalizes the prior Ordinance is unaware of the problems inherent in the existing document. The problems just keep compounding. Therefore, it is a sort of self-perpetuating chain-mail letter that keeps getting garbled with each translation.
"If Historic Gettysburg has this Ordinance, then it MUST be a legal Ordinance, right"? Wrong. That flawed logic is what has us going nuts in every municipality that restricts because of "history" or "aesthetics".
My favorite question is "Which history do you want to regulate"? In 1863, when Gettysburg was placed on the map because of a tremendous battle, the signs were across the sidewalks, across the streets, on banners, and six feet or so above the rooflines of many buildings. Signs were basically boring and black and white with bold lettering.
While I honestly believe that there should be some way of keeping the historic flavor of a town like Gettysburg, I still believe that the Constitution, and a merchant's ability to make a living, trump some silly document which will change according to the mores of whichever Town Council happens to be in power.
I have suggested that the Sign Ordinance remains a Legal Document, and any attempts to control speech should be done as a CHOICE by the merchant. In order to direct the appearance of signs in a community, it should be done through INCENTIVES and VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES, and NOT through coercion and illegal enforcement.
Look at the "SignLine" series of documents on the website of the International Sign Association www.signs.org When you get there click on "government" and surf over to the Signlines.
You'll be amazed."
ANOTHER: "I am in the process of trying to change the Sign Ordinance in Gettysburg, PA. I finally had to call in a lawyer to talk to the Borough idiots. Suing them is the only way we can even bring this to the table.
Some things I have learned: a) Commercial signs are a means of free speech, protected by the First Amendment. b) Zoning relates to the ability to do a certain business in a certain area. Signs are not related to zoning issues. c) The government can only be very specific about the limitations they put on speech d) Put the sign up, have them fine you and then the battle is on!
I know this is an over-simplification of the facts, but you can check out the info at the International Sign Association website. Check this link and download ALL of the Signlines you can for further reading. http://www.signs.org/Government/SignlineList.cfm "
And FINALLY: I am in the midst of a battle with the local Historical Review Board and the Borough Council of Gettysburg. It all boils down to selective enforcement of a flawed sign ordinance.
You will be heading into murky waters when you try to determine a "lawful" ordinance. One thing to consider is the difference between "zoning" and "free speech". Zoning will determine IF a restaurant is allowed in a particular area. After that, the First Amendment and free speech kick in. There are very few "lawful" restrictions of that speech and that's where many sign ordinances run afowl.
I suggest that you go to the International Sign Association website first www.signs.org and download all of their "SignLine" literature. Then buy many of the sign source books that are pertinent to the codes and zoning issues. They are WELL worth the money and a wealth of resources. Read and then re-read them.
This is not a simple task for you or any other mere mortal to tackle. If done correctly, it will be VERY time consuming. While it looks simple on the surface, many of the guidelines you set forth today will affect the futures of many businesses. It is not to be taken lightly when you restrict their abilities to do business. There is also liability inherent in writing a bad sign code.
ALSO VERRRRRY IMPORTANT - You noted that the town is offering grants for "proper" signage. That is the difference! IF they offer you a grant, as in a "Main Street" matching grant, THEN they can have a good bit of control over your sign choices - IF YOU CHOOSE TO USE THEIR PROGRAM. Through incentive , they have become a "partner" with you in determining your signage. You have effectively accepted their money and relinquished some of your "rights". That is the only way a municipality should be able to restrict your abilities to speak through size, design, color or (shudder) content!
Please feel free to call me at 717-334-0200 to discuss."
Posted by Bill Lynch (Member # 3815) on :
Gene, I read it all, and have in the past and checked out your website. It's an honorable battle, but a tough, time consuming one, and not one that many will take up. Hell if McDonalds will buckle under how does a corner lunchenette win? I've done zoning fights (on other issues) and even though there were blatant errors on the part of town officials that didn't pay our lawyers bill when we won. Kinda like tort reform, the town should be liable for damages when they are wrong, as much as they want to fine the citizen when they are wrong.
Posted by Cam Bortz (Member # 55) on :
Municipalities bully people with these types of ordinances as long as they are allowed to get away with it. The problem is that while an individual or business has limited resources for a protracted legal battle, most municipalities keep squadrons of lawyers on retainer, paid for by taxpayers, just for that purpose.
The Achilles heel of most municipalities is money - as long as tax revenues keep coming in, they have no incentive to cooperate with businesses (which pay the lion's share of the taxes to begin with!) To make a municipality pay attention, you need a way to shut of the tax money. One way to do that is to have a number of businesses put their tax money in escrow until changes are enacted or greivances aired. It's not easy; most businesspeople fear the power of municipal wrath and will put up with a vast amount of irrational regulation and official bullying, rather than take the necessary risks. Even in towns where a business's First Amendment rights are routinely ignored, it takes a brave soul to fight the good fight.
The bottom line is, as Gene Golden proves, you CAN fight city hall - but not until you and your customers decide to man up and grow a set. Posted by Rick Sacks (Member # 379) on :
Gene, I did read it all. I also highly respect what you're doing and believe it to benefit many of us. Thank you.
As for regulations, size, historic colors, placement and means of attachment to building seem to be how far a historic code can go. What the sign reads is not their jurisdiction. It might be pointed out that putting a list of everything they sell and a phone number on the sign is tacky and will make it all so small that it can't compete with the surrounding signs. But that can't be law.
Posted by Cam Bortz (Member # 55) on :
The problem with "Historic District" sign regulations is that it is an arbitrary fiction, based on someone's idea of what they think an area should have looked like.
In Mystic the system actually works pretty well. The HDC has set some fairly specific guidelines - absolutely no neon, internally lit plastic faces or LEDs. The size limits are not too restrictive, given the sightlines and viewing distances. I've never had anything rejected, or seriously questioned, due to content, color, design or materials; the committee here seems to have got a clear idea about what they can legally restrict, and what they can't.
The upshot is that the most egregiously trashy signs are kept out, and what is allowed ranges from very good to mediocre. That in and of itself makes the center of town look better than most places, without having the feel of being at Disneyworld or on a movie set.
What's interesting is that despite the best efforts, you can't legislate taste or common sense. We have one fairly prominent downtown store that sells high-end linens - the kind of place where you can easily spend $500 on a set of bedsheets - and their "sign" is a piece or computer-printout paper taped to the inside of their window with scotch tape! When they first opened I stopped by with cards and a brochure and got a very cold "no thank you". The Merchant Association has suggested they put up a real sign and from what I've heard, have been told to mind their own business. They've been open over two years now with this crummy paper sign in their window, but apparently no one at HDC has the interest or the authority to do anything about it.
Posted by Bill Diaz (Member # 2549) on :
I feel your pain. This is a post worthy of a reply, and there are no definitive answers, but everyone's input is of value. And, Gene, I did read your post. I agree with parts.
Where I would like to take this discussion is in the aspect regarding freedom of speech. Freedom of speech as a guaranteed by the American constitution is as ambiguous a concept as you can image in a modern society. Our founding fathers could not imagine the world we live in where speech would be coupled with graphic images and the right for someone to put any kind of graphic image they so desired up for all to see.
I'm sure a pornographic billboard down the block from an elementary school would be freedom of speech put to the test.
Historically sign ordinances were first considered during a time when signs grew bigger and bigger as businesses did whatever they could to get noticed. As some of these monstrosities fell to the ground killing people and were responsible for tearing brick veneers off buildings, municipalities had no choice but to write laws to protect themselves from law suits.
I'm not sure where I stand on all this, what I'm most in agreement with is that signs should be properly fastened and positioned so that they do not pose a threat to our safety.
What I'm against is an ordinance that tries to limit the number of fonts, colors or geometric shapes allowed. We have such an ordinance in our town which bought into the "Main Street" franchise some time ago.
Today we have to submit our design to a committee to review before a sign can be permitted. This is a minimum 2 week process that can go to 30 days if a variance is needed. Talk about getting off on the wrong track with a customer. Trying telling someone who wants to open a store that it could take 30 days for them to get a sign. You compound that with the fact that there are committee members that see their world in black and white, and you have a problem with me. That freedom of speech is clear to me.
But although I am not one to come up with too many controversial designs, I can understand why we wouldn't want to allow just anything. I have a problem with looking at trash whether it would be a sign, a junk yard or a next door neighbor who wants to live in filth. So I'm torn here, but some day I would like to work on a sign ordinance that is practical for smaller communities like mine.
Posted by Joseph Diaz (Member # 5913) on :
I understand the need to have sign ordinances in place. But like my dad just said. It seems that over time the true purpose of these ordinances has been slanted. I think there should be more of a focus on the craftsmanship going into the signs rather than the design itself.
I find it’s funny that our own town officials make us jump through all these hoops so that they can have some sort of say on how a sign looks or how many square feet it is, but they don’t once question the materials and some of steps we take to make our signs last long or be safe. It doesn’t matter how well the sign was designed if there is no restrictions on how safe it is.
I think some of the biggest eye sores in our town, are signs and structures that are simply put… old. Not only are these signs falling apart and as a result look terrible, but they are also unsafe. I have yet to here the “committee” enforce this.
We are pretty lucky though. I can’t think of a time when the committee has refused one of our designs. But I do think there is an issue of fairness and enforcement that needs to be addressed in our particular situation. The thing that aggravates me the most is that we play by the books. We go through a month or so long ordeal of designing sketches of how the building will look with signage to go in front of a committee of non artistic design reviewers, then to the zoning board… and so on.
And, when we explain this to a customer that is opening in a week that we can’t possibly have their sign done in that short of a time due to all of these hoops that we have to jump through, in some cases, they go some where else. This is when I start having a problem. When we start loosing business because of rules that other (mostly out of town) sign shops break all the time. And what makes me mad is that nothing is done about it after the fact. The customer that we lost goes on having a sign that by our town’s rules is out of code, and we come out looking like idiots. It’s just not right.
Posted by Darcy Baker (Member # 8262) on :
Gene, Thank you for the links. I am downloading all info as knowledge is power/ Here a bank wanted to demolish an abandoned gas station and they were told it was a historic building.Circa nineteen seventy something. The bank got their way but They are a Bank! Took em a while too.I wish you the best in your pro-active approach to achieve a viable sign ordinance. years ago I went to the planning commission to get on the HDC.They asked what credentials I had. I responded "common sense". I don't think they liked that answer as I wasn't nominated.
Posted by Bill Lynch (Member # 3815) on :
How about telling a customer their $500 aluminum wall sign will require a $650 engineered drawing and $350 in zoning costs? Plus the 2 weeks to 2 months for this to happen. All because a town official is too lazy/scared/incompetent to look at a drawing and know if it's structurally safe.
![[Applause]](graemlins/applause.gif)