“I am for

enforcing a well written Code that is not complaint driven”

“I am against Code that allows for personal interpretations by any official, sign manufacturer or citizen.”

A friend of mine wrote those words in January of 2005. I support them to this day.

Several people have asked why I limit some of the things I write here regarding the sign code. I do it for that first reason. I absolutely refuse to complain to the City about enforcement of the Code. It should be enforced without my input. It is not my job, and the City said the new Code would be enforced. I also do it because I am on the side of the business owners of this town.

I do not agree that a business owner “may not cover more than 1/3 of a ground floor window”. It is your damn window, as long as you are willing to permit it as part of your wall signage, have at it. I was told (before it passed) that is what the intent of the code was. Wrong.

I had a very disturbing conversation today. A local business owner who I have known for some time, and have worked with in the past, gave me some intel on his signs. You see, I did not believe his signs were in compliance. I mentioned this, and found that all his signs are legal, and permitted. Because, the City hated his old signs so much, they compromised their own Sign Code. Not only that, they allowed a business owner to dictate to them the signs he would put up. In one instance, it appears the content of the sign was at issue, and the modification of that content caused them to allow a sign to be permitted.

Now I like this guy, and I hope his business is successful and he grows rich and prosperous, and if he can tell the City what signs he will put up, that is their problem. Except that this situation causes unequal treatment to every business owner that complies with the Code, and only has one pole sign or the correct 10%+ of the wall sign allowance.

The content thing is a whole ‘nother ball of wax. You see, the City of Great Falls has absolutely no right to dictate what your sign says.  In my opinion, they have no right to allow realty signs, contractor signs etc. without a permit, because the content of the sign distinguishes what is permissible and impermissable.

Similarly situated individuals should receive equal treatment  and protection of the law. If the business activity is legal and the proposed sign both truthful and not likely to outrage a  communities’ sensibilities, the code must be equally applied to all businesses.

So, in 17.60.8.020 of the the Land Development Code when it states, “It is unlawful for anyone to place, construct, enlarge, alter, move or convert any sign or sign structure in the City, or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of the provisions of this chapter“ why does that not not apply to City Officials who are supposed to “Provide effective and binding code implementation and enforcement measures?”

Anyone?

12 July 2007 | Life | Comments