Benefis’ Banners
are nice banners. They are well installed, professional quality, and Benefis should be proud of the hard work that got them this award.
But they are against the Sign code. Benefis said they would take them down with a written request, which they have no authority to demand. These are banners, by definition temporary signs, and as such, the City only needs to give them verbal warning of violation and 24 hours to take them down. It appears that has been done. (Look at the Weekly Review)
Honestly, I don’t see why this medical complex shouldn’t have the same type of exemptions as the Ballpark and Fairgrounds got, except of course, they never asked for them until after the fact.
I have written before about complaint driven enforcement of this sign code. Is people calling in and complaining the only way to force the City to enforce the Code? I drove around town at about 4:00 yesterday. I saw 5 illegal sandwich boards. Two were blown over onto the street. One, downtown, the only place in the City you may legally put a sandwich board on public property, was on the corner, several hundred feet from the actual business. It must be located on the area in front of the advertising business.
I see abandoned signs all over town. How long ago did Marco Polos close? When did Bullfrog Spas move? The Loading Zone has two pole signs less that 30 feet apart. THE F%&#*g MONTANA BAR SIGN IS STILL UP!!! These are all violations, and the City has no excuse for allowing them.
The action against Benefis is selective enforcement. Every business owner in this town who has ever paid for a sign permit, should demand that the City start enforcing the Code, equally, and without someone having to complain that so and so isn’t playing fair.
They need to enforce the damn Code they shoved down our throats. They need to address the sign clutter. They need to address abandoned signs. They need to focus on enforcement. How many people stood up in the Commission meetings and told the City a new Code was worthless unless it was enforced. Oh, but we hired a guy to do that. Where is he now? Why is Rattray calling people?
Why is the City ok with me, and him, and that other guy over there, all saying “I TOLD YOU SO!”
Why are all the people that pay permit fees ok with that money not going where we were told it would - enforcement of the Sign Code.
13 Responses to “Benefis’ Banners”
1 david 12 March 2008 @ 9:50 pm
I’m glad that we have a sign expert among our bloggy ranks. Give ‘em hell, FF.
And to any city officials who are reading this: WHY is this situation so weird and selective???
2 mary jolley 13 March 2008 @ 8:09 am
I don’t know.
But the soon to be installed new City Manager was asked about code inforcement and I have to admit I don’t remember what he replied. But I’m pretty sure it wasn’t “Que sera, sera.”
3 wolfpack 15 March 2008 @ 9:05 am
Firefly- Did you catch the Sat Tribune article about bus stop shelters? The city let Chandler Communications put up shelters with advertising similar to bench signs only much bigger. The amusing part was that they were allowed to put them up at multiple locations where the bus doesn’t stop (free billboard locations?). The article said the mall has four shelters but only one is on a bus route. I also found it odd that the city bragged about receiving no revenue unlike they do for benches. The non bus route locations are extremely similar to the benches in the sense who would use them other than as a billboard. I think this off-site advertising is more of an eyesore than any on premise sign I’ve ever seen.
4 firefly 15 March 2008 @ 1:49 pm
The City didn’t brag about anything, the Transit District did. I’m pretty confident Gary is paying City sign permit fees, but I will find out. I’m also confident the shelters are well within the legal parameters of the Code. After all, Gary Walrack helped write it.
5 wolfpack 15 March 2008 @ 5:20 pm
I tossed my copy of the paper but I thought they quoted a city employee saying the city wasn’t going to charge. I also didn’t mean to imply that Walrack did any wrong but that the city did. My point was that transit signs are going up where the transit system doesn’t serve. Having a sheltered bus stop is the public pay back for tolerating the visual clutter brought by these off premise signs on public property. I can see why Walrack would want extra unneeded transit shelters but why would the city? A Benefis sign on a Benefis building is a problem but multiple transit signs on city property no where near a bus stop, no problem. It has always bothered me about the new code in that it increased restrictions on signs that are actually located with the business they serve but left bench and billboards alone whose owners actually had representation on the sign committee.
6 gffirefly 15 March 2008 @ 6:20 pm
So? The City did not do anything wrong. The shelters are legal. The Code says so. And I expect that those “unneeded” shelters around the mall are probably pretty popular.
Public payback for tolerating the visual clutter? What about the visual clutter from signs that aren’t legal? Where’s my damn payback for that?
Why are you making this about what you like and don’t like, instead of things like selective enforcement, and equal protection, and content based restrictions.
7 wolfpack 15 March 2008 @ 7:29 pm
I didn’t say the city didn’t do anything wrong. Permitting bus stops where the bus doesn’t stop isn’t illegal but it isn’t right either. Exactly who are the “unneeded” shelters popular with other than the owner who collects advertising dollars for renting a sign installed on public land?
8 firefly 17 March 2008 @ 4:44 pm
“I also didn’t mean to imply that Walrack did any wrong but that the city did.”
“I didn’t say the city didn’t do anything wrong.”
The poor sentence structure and double negatives confuse me. I no longer know what you are trying to say.
9 wolfpack 17 March 2008 @ 5:17 pm
Ditto. The negatives apply to different nouns so they don’t stack up but read it however you wish to avoid the point.
10 firefly 17 March 2008 @ 6:24 pm
The City allowed a legal business to put up legal signs.
For a variety of reasons you don’t think it’s right.
Bench and transit structures pay an annual fee to the City.
The Montana Bar sign does not. Real estate signs do not pay any permit fees. Illegally installed signs do not pay permit fees, yet they are all regulated under the code. Guess who pays for enforcement? The people who pay permit fees.
I don’t think that’s right.
11 wolfpack 17 March 2008 @ 7:27 pm
I’m one of those guys paying permit fees, I also advertise on bench signs and I have had the city send me letters demanding unused signs be removed because of complaints. I suspect that most complaints are competitor driven, meaning that the complainant’s motive usually has little to do with wanting the law followed. I agree this is a problem with the current method of enforcement. The complaint driven model generally makes the city a tool for harassing competitors or perceived enemies.
I don’t necessarily agree that transit shelter signs where the transit system doesn’t stop are necessarily legal. I think it could easily be argued that the Director of Community Development erred by approving a transit shelter permit where the transit system doesn’t serve. Clearly not being located on the transit route changes the function of the shelter from “transit shelter” to just a plain old “shelter” for which there is no legal permit. Should we complain?
12 firefly 18 March 2008 @ 7:17 am
If you do complain, I would recommend you use that last argument instead of anything about them being an eyesore.
13 wolfpack 18 March 2008 @ 8:21 am
Agreed. I think I’ll hold off on my complaints about the shelters because I have a couple of competitors I would like to harass first
.
Leave a Reply