Sign of the Times
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:17 am
Here is an overview of why there were 3 meetings to create the new sign ordinance.
Meeting 1) You discuss to create direction to the city attorney for a draft of how you want the ordinance to read.
Meeting 2) You review it and possibly vote on it by the "first reading" only. However if there are significant changes then you have to send it back for a redrafting for another first reading. Otherwise you bring it back for the final and second reading.
Meeting 3) During meeting #2 there were not significant changes to create a redraft, but simply minor corrections and a few deletions. This is the result of having the public comments as well as council comments. I would agree that there was an overabundance of discussion on what some people would consider to be very insignificant. However, to the people who commented as well as my fellow councilmembers this was an important issue and rightly so.
There were blatent violations last election, some now including prematurely placed signs, yard signs from June. But since the ordinance just passed these slipped under the wire.
I did support fines for city picked up signs after the election. I cannot support fines for during the election as some people may move signs. If people don't believe this it does happen. It happened in surrounding citys. Anything to give another candidate bad press.
I personally haven't even ordered my signs. It isn't a priority for me, when and if it happens I will follow the ordinance.
Debating an issue is important, you have 5 people with 5 opinions. By debating and discussing it the constituent usually receives the most thought out response which would build a consensus. Sometimes it is a quick process and sometimes it isn't. It all depends on who does their homework and who doesn't that can hold a meeting up.
The process is very complete and worth the trouble. I must say that you may not always agree with Victor but he is right when he says it is about discussing the issue that it is important.
Meeting 1) You discuss to create direction to the city attorney for a draft of how you want the ordinance to read.
Meeting 2) You review it and possibly vote on it by the "first reading" only. However if there are significant changes then you have to send it back for a redrafting for another first reading. Otherwise you bring it back for the final and second reading.
Meeting 3) During meeting #2 there were not significant changes to create a redraft, but simply minor corrections and a few deletions. This is the result of having the public comments as well as council comments. I would agree that there was an overabundance of discussion on what some people would consider to be very insignificant. However, to the people who commented as well as my fellow councilmembers this was an important issue and rightly so.
There were blatent violations last election, some now including prematurely placed signs, yard signs from June. But since the ordinance just passed these slipped under the wire.
I did support fines for city picked up signs after the election. I cannot support fines for during the election as some people may move signs. If people don't believe this it does happen. It happened in surrounding citys. Anything to give another candidate bad press.
I personally haven't even ordered my signs. It isn't a priority for me, when and if it happens I will follow the ordinance.
Debating an issue is important, you have 5 people with 5 opinions. By debating and discussing it the constituent usually receives the most thought out response which would build a consensus. Sometimes it is a quick process and sometimes it isn't. It all depends on who does their homework and who doesn't that can hold a meeting up.
The process is very complete and worth the trouble. I must say that you may not always agree with Victor but he is right when he says it is about discussing the issue that it is important.