At the last city council meeting, the council voted against the sign ordinance as written by the Huntington Plan Commission. I was there and I spoke out against the sign ordinance. After speaking out against it, a couple of the Plan Commission members approached me in dismay that I was against the ordinance and that I hadn’t even participated in the 13-month-long process of creating the monstrosity. They couldn’t understand my frustration. Here is my problem with the sign ordinance:
As written, many of the signs that most residents find perfectly acceptable would not be replaceable without an exemption from the sign ordinance director. The exemption process was touted as the solution for a difficult task of creating an ordinance that covers everyone. The problem I have with this is that the ordinance was written so most signs will need an exemption. This puts too much control into the hands of unelected officials. It allows them to use their own bias to control Huntington residents and businesses. It creates a situation where “greasing the wheels” of county government becomes too easy of a step into corruption. ”They’re good people!” you may say, but who will be the next person in charge? Could they say no to their friend’s competitor? What about their, or their boss’s main campaign contributor? What about that contributor’s competitor? What if it’s a local hotel owner with a foreign accent? Can they truly remain unbiased in determining whether or not they will issue an exemption? The sign ordinance should be written in such a way that an exemption is an exemplary situation, not the norm. And when an exemption does get approved or denied? The basis that was used to make the determination should be written into the ordinance so that all future decisions get the same treatment.
Instead of being all-encompassingly restrictive, a Huntington sign ordinance should err on the side of allowing signs, rather than on the ban of signs. As each line of the ordinance is read, a simple question should be asked: What gives you the right? What gives you the right to create the restrictions that are contained within the ordinance? The right to prevent businesses from advertising the way they see fit on their own property?
Too often as citizens we allow this little by little take over of our daily lives that we don’t even realize what we are giving up until it’s too late. The Herald-Press quoted one of the sign ordinance creators as saying that in the past this would have passed without issue being taken, because no one would have cared and that the recent surge in limited government ideals is what prevented it from passing (paraphrased). This scares me. When I read it, it almost sounded like he was saying that by being concerned, we’re now getting in the way of them working. That we are becoming a problem. This, combined with the shear ignorance they showed as to why we think the ordinance is anti business, scares me. The fact that we have people that think this way creating our laws scares me.
My proposed sign ordinance would cover the following areas:
- Property line setback requirements for road frontage signs
- Requirement that the signs be constructed in a manner that doesn’t create a safety hazard
- Brightness levels allowed at the property line during night time hours
- Consideration for Historic District areas and nature preserves
- Consideration for Neighborhood association rules
That’s it. Anything more that prevents a business from determining the size, shape, or number of signs a business can have begins to raise the question of “what gives you the right?” A business has a vested interest in making market-appropriate signage. Citizens have the ability to choose where they do or don’t shop based on signs that they may feel they don’t like. There are free-market factors that will naturally control the signage that businesses use.
During the City Council meeting break, the president of the Plan Commission approached me and asked how I would feel if Huntington had as many signs as Coliseum Blvd. has in Fort Wayne. My answer? I would feel GREAT if Huntington had the number of businesses advertising here as they have on Coliseum. I would love for Huntington to have as many businesses as Coliseum Blvd. has. I think it would solve most of the financial problems that Huntington is facing if we had that many businesses.
These reasons, plus more that I don’t have time to get into, are why I am against any sign ordinance that is more restrictive than needed to cover the five bullets listed above.
Oh – and one more thing – The Herald-Press article also said that the Plan Commission was disappointed that those of us who spoke out at the City Council meeting weren’t at the Plan Commission meeting last Thursday. My response? I was disappointed that the meeting wasn’t listed on the city’s/county’s $35,000 website calendar of city/county meetings.
[EDIT: The new version of sign ordinance is now available here: 4-C-10[1]. First reading of the sign ordinance will be on Tuesday, March 30th at 6:45 am]
City Council Contact Information:
City Council Members
Erv Ebersole 356-7372
Jason Fields 224-9163
Steve McIntyre 356-299
Brooks Fetters 358-0757
Jack Slusser -356-4755
Joe Blomeke (at large) 356-6912
Keith Eller (at large) 356-0869
Planning Commission/County Courthouse – 358-4836
Recent Comments