An actual follow-up just like I promised…
The Montana Bar closed before the new sign code was passed. So, at the time it closed, the applicable portion of the Sign Code stated:
15.11.26. Existing signs–Signs not in use or abandoned.
Any sign which no longer advertises a bona fide business, product, or service shall be removed by the owner of the sign, the owner, agent or person having the beneficial use of the premises upon which the sign may be found within 180 days. Upon failure to comply, the Building Official is hereby authorized to cause the removal of the sign as provided in Subsection F of Section 15.11.270.
Today, the applicable portion of the Code states:
17.60.7.100 Abandoned or moribund signs
A sign that no longer advertises a bona fide business, product, or service must be removed within 180 days. If the sign structure is conforming the structure may remain with a blank face unless the face advertises the premise for sale or lease. If the sign structure is nonconforming the structure must be made conforming or be removed.
Responsibility for removal lies with the owner of the sign, or the owner, agent or person upon whose premises the sign is located. If the sign owner or agent fails to remove the sign, the Director of Community Development or designee is authorized to remove the sign and assess the costs against the property.
(If the sign structure is conforming the structure may remain with a blank face unless the face advertises the premise for sale or lease. Well, if it advertised the premise for sale or lease, the sign wouldn’t have a blank face, now would it. Good thing they got that covered!)
In any event, which ever way you look at it, the Montana Bar sign is in direct violation of any sign code that has been in effect for the last 10 years. And since the owner or agent has not removed the sign, who does that responsibility fall on? Anyone?
If we base it off of the old code, which was in effect when the bar closed, it is obvious that this is not “more complicated than…” The Montana Bar, regardless of ownership of the building, had the beneficial use of the premises, and ownership of the sign. Even up to 2005, the “sitting City Councilwoman” made decisions regarding the sign, which might indicate she was operating as the “agent”. The length of time that has passed since the bar closed does muddy the waters a bit. I do not know which Code would be applicable in this instance.
And yes, I do have a copy of the old Sign Code, but I cannot link to it, because it is in my file cabinet. It is in a yellow folder, along with my copy of the new Sign Code, and I have each section marked, with notations relevant to the changes that were made. On each of them, I have identified the issues relevant to Enforcement.
4 Responses to “An actual follow-up just like I promised…”
1 GeeGuy 20 June 2007 @ 7:31 pm
So, why are you just letting this thing languish? Why don’t you call Community Development, tell them you want it down, and then post what they have to say about it?
2 gffirefly 20 June 2007 @ 8:40 pm
And people dare call you a trouble maker!
3 GeeGuy 21 June 2007 @ 8:34 am
That was an answer?
4 Walter Greenspan 21 June 2007 @ 12:29 pm
Here’s another City of Great Falls ordinance that is NOT enforced (may be you should start a collection of City of Great Falls ordinances that are NOT enforced?):
“It is unlawful for any person to ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk within the central business district east of the west line of Park Drive.”
In a separate section, the Great Falls Municipal Code defines the “central business district”:
The “Central business district” means all streets and portions of streets within the area described as follows: All that area bounded by the west line of Park Drive, thence in an easterly direction on a line with south line of Second Avenue South to east line of Ninth Street, thence north to the north line of Second Avenue North thence west to point of origin.
Source:
http://www.ci.great-falls.mt.us/city_codes/title-10.htm
Leave a Reply