Tuesday, March 1, 2011

I just don't get it.

Last night, I watched the Commission discuss signage ordinances at the Discussion meeting.  For those of you who don't know what the Discussion meeting is, it is the meeting that is open to the public and it precedes the Commission meeting, also open to the public.  The discussion about signage was over the SOS signs. Phi Weis, our Solicitor, will be rewriting the ordinance so that the SOS signs can stay up indefinitely because of the First Amendment.  After that, it will be passed on to the Zoning Hearing Board for approval.  While all this discussion was going on, the School Board Directors approved the PlanCon F Submission, and can now advertise for solicitation of bids for the project.  We're now paying the Municipal Solicitor to rewrite the ordinance over a done deal.  At the Commission meeting that followed, a shop owner from Washington Road commented that he signed a five-year lease and was hoping that some attention would be given to the shop owners with regard to signage ordinances.  He has a large storefront, but is restricted from having a sign that would be in proportion to it. Why is so much time and money being wasted on SOS signs, when we have local businesses (thank goodness for them!) trying to survive in this economy asking for more visibility?  I just don't get it.

Update 10:23 a.m. Before a small group twists what I said into something else, for the record, I am all for the First Amendment.  Of course!!!  I just don't understand the need for this group to continue to protest when it is over.  They won.  They are getting everything they asked for.  Let's move on, folks.  We've got local businesses trying to survive.  They are faced with higher tax bills, like the rest of us.  We're trying to adjust to your plan that you fought for.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Elaine, we are not paying the Solicitor to rewrite an ordinance to keep the SOS signs up. He is rewriting the ordinance because it is legally deficient.

Dave Franklin

Lebo Citizens said...

Yes, Dave, you are right. The ordinance is legally deficient and was brought to light when a resident pointed out that the signs were not "political signs" as explained by the Municipality and School District. The group wants to keep the signs up even though the school has been "saved." They have served their purpose.