Sign ordinance back AGAIN?!?!

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

This week’s City Manager’s weekly newsletter makes it sound as if the local Chamber of Commerce supports Kohler’s stupid sign Ordinance.

Here is an excerpt from the City Manager’s newsletter:

“Chamber letter in support of removal of abandoned signs
I’ve attached a copy, for Council’s information, of a Chamber of Commerce letter from June 2009, which supports our actions of requiring the maintenance of signs in an effort to improve community image.”
(You can view the Chamber letter by clicking here-à http://www.cityofmiddletown.org/docs/news/460.pdf The Chamber letter is on page 3 of 7)

Folks, let me try to make all of this as plain and simple as possible!!!
Neither I, nor anyone other reasonable person in town supports shoddy, dangerous, misleading, outdated signs. That is not the issue!!!
But there are TWO parts to signs, especially signs of the larger, higher, free-standing variety. There is the sign facing, which carries the message and perhaps a logo, and in the grand scheme of things is relatively inexpensive. This is the part of the sign that, when abandon, most often becomes vandalized, weathered, shows signs of neglect. Neither I nor any other reasonable person should object to ordinances requiring the owners to remove or maintain (if the sign is being used to advertise the vacant property for sale or lease) such sign FACINGS, and to keep them from being unsightly. This should apply even to properties perceived by some as historic.
The second, and more expensive part to the signs is the sign supporting structure. Now I am not referring to damaged, decrepit, dangerous, dilapidated, or structurally failing sign structures. Of course neither I nor any other reasonable person would object to the appropriate remedies for those situations being promptly and sternly enforced by whatever means necessary.
The problem here in Middletown is that Mr. Kohler and his cronies wish to use sign structures as a personal weapon. They want to try to legally FORCE the demolition of perfectly sound, useful sign structures, simply because there is no longer a current message on the sign facing. This is a “double whammy” to the property owner. He is faced with the expense of demolishing a perfectly good, structurally sound sign support, and then when a new business is interested in the property, either the current property owner or the new business is faced with the expense of constructing a new, replacement supporting sign structure. NO reasonable person should be favor of this screwball, wasteful approach!!! 
Additionally, enforcement of this seems to be quite “selective”. This ordinance only seems to apply to properties where “blue collar” employers become interested, cronies want to buy the property on the cheap, or doggie parks might be considered.

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Mike_Presta Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483	Post Options Post Reply Quote Mike_Presta Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Topic: Sign ordinance back AGAIN?!?! Posted: Jan 21 2011 at 6:37am
	This week’s City Manager’s weekly newsletter makes it sound as if the local Chamber of Commerce supports Kohler’s stupid sign Ordinance. Here is an excerpt from the City Manager’s newsletter: “Chamber letter in support of removal of abandoned signs I’ve attached a copy, for Council’s information, of a Chamber of Commerce letter from June 2009, which supports our actions of requiring the maintenance of signs in an effort to improve community image.” (You can view the Chamber letter by clicking here-à http://www.cityofmiddletown.org/docs/news/460.pdf The Chamber letter is on page 3 of 7) Folks, let me try to make all of this as plain and simple as possible!!! Neither I, nor anyone other reasonable person in town supports shoddy, dangerous, misleading, outdated signs. That is not the issue!!! But there are TWO parts to signs, especially signs of the larger, higher, free-standing variety. There is the sign facing, which carries the message and perhaps a logo, and in the grand scheme of things is relatively inexpensive. This is the part of the sign that, when abandon, most often becomes vandalized, weathered, shows signs of neglect. Neither I nor any other reasonable person should object to ordinances requiring the owners to remove or maintain (if the sign is being used to advertise the vacant property for sale or lease) such *sign FACINGS, and to keep them from being unsightly. This should apply even to properties perceived by some as historic. The second, and more expensive part to the signs is the sign supporting structure. Now I am not referring to damaged, decrepit, dangerous, dilapidated, or structurally failing sign structures. Of course neither I nor any other reasonable person would object to the appropriate remedies for those situations being promptly and sternly enforced by whatever means necessary. The problem here in Middletown is that Mr. Kohler and his cronies wish to use sign structures as a personal weapon. They want to try to legally FORCE the demolition of perfectly sound, useful sign structures, simply because there is no longer a current message* on the sign facing. This is a “double whammy” to the property owner. He is faced with the expense of demolishing a perfectly good, structurally sound sign support, and then when a new business is interested in the property, either the current property owner or the new business is faced with the expense of constructing a new, replacement supporting sign structure. *NO reasonable person should be favor of this screwball, wasteful approach!!!* Additionally, enforcement of this seems to be quite “selective”. This ordinance only seems to apply to properties where *“blue collar”* employers become interested, cronies want to buy the property on the cheap, or doggie parks might be considered.
	“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012

Paul Nagy Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Citizen Joined: Jan 11 2009 Status: Offline Points: 384	Post Options Post Reply Quote Paul Nagy Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Jan 21 2011 at 7:02am
	Mike, You raise another issue of importance to me and is another "much ado about nothing" with the city administration that have little to zero busines experience. I was in the sign business for 25 years. I presented this information to council in 2006(?) but it was ignored as usual. This was standard sign useage for many years in cities throughout the United States. Many sign codes had this attachment in their zoning and planning codes. A business owner would state from this attachment which signs would be on their buildings and they were required by zoning to follow accordingly. I will attempt to post the attachment by a separate blog. The questions regarding abandoned and obsolete signs are moot and ridiculous. If a business is going to buy a property they are extremely interested in whether or not there is an existing sign. Signs are very expensive. If the sign is there it saves them a lot of money and makes the property more appealing. They are more likely to buy the business and replace the panels as it suits them. A sign is not abandoned because a building has been vacated. It was the practice to leave the sign for the next tenant. If the panels were removed between tenants many cities required a custom made cover to be put over the sign structure to look nicer. The sign people loved it because the sign covers were additonal sales for them. That eliminated the need for a time period to remove the sign and calling it abandoned or obsolete. The sign covers looked very nice and many have additional murals or advertising on them. That is why a sign in the final analysis cannot be obsolete. A couple of additonal points. People that work for the city have never run a business. They are more interested in aesthetics than they are in businesses or jobs. The real problem is with the few small business owners who junk-up their windows with window lettering and graphics that are ridiculous. For the few that do such that can be regulated with common sense negotiation and fines. Generally, they do it themselves rather than hiring a sign maker. But even that is open to subjective views by those who are not business oriented. It is too much ado about nothing by the city administration and is anti business. I hope this will help some. Paul Nagy P.S. Sorry, I'm not able to post the attachment since it is a jpeg file.

Bobbie Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Citizen Joined: Jun 05 2009 Location: Middletown Status: Offline Points: 288	Post Options Post Reply Quote Bobbie Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Jan 21 2011 at 10:57am
	I will say I am no means an expert in this area - but I have a couple of questions. If a current owner takes down the sign and structure then lease the building to new business. Would you not then have to apply for a permit for the new sign and follow current zoning regulations. Is this a way the city is possibly trying to get more money? Also would this not hurt a business that may have to follow a different standard for there sign, while the neighboring business is grandfathered (ie. a taller more dominate sign to one that is closer to the ground and not as visable).

Vivian Moon Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Council Joined: May 16 2008 Location: Middletown, Ohi Status: Offline Points: 4187	Post Options Post Reply Quote Vivian Moon Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Jan 21 2011 at 2:23pm
	Oh how I wish I could remember the graphic arts rules concerning signage… but I believe as you dive down a street you have about 10 seconds to read and recognize a location of a business and turn into their driveway. The faster you are traveling the less time you have and therefore signs next to an interstate were allowed to be very large. However since Mr Kohler doesn’t what anyone to leave I-75 we get a million dollar water feature…and since we have little bitty signs within city limits I guess we will need to reduce speed limits to 5 mph Yes sir that feller has got a plan