Yes, live!
This is a public hearing meeting, which ironically means that there will probably be less public speaking than at a regular meeting, because at least at this meeting people have to talk about what's on the agenda.
7:01
Yikes, the Maritime Republic of Eastport is here. They have children, confirming the worst fears of mainland-ers that they are developing a youth indoctrination program. Their annual Declaration of (Tug Of) War will come be expressed in a battle on November 8.
7:10
The city just received a grant that will allow them to buy yarn. I'm sure I'm leaving out some relevant information but that's what struck me.
7:11
We are now being treated to a presentation on the Legacy of Slavery in Annapolis. There is a screen, and a projector--likely causes of "a case of the Mondays" for the MIT department. The right side of the room must now move to the left side, because the screen is set up on the right side of the room. Lesson: when looking for factual information, always look to the right.*
(*Political pun!!)
7:15
The presentation has come to a halt because the presenter tried to access a web page and it says "page cannot be displayed". Finally, vindication!! Presenter: if you are reading this right now, I will sell you the secrets of my internet "borrowing" for $5, payable in $.05 installments for however long it takes.
7:17
As an aside, the pre-meeting conversation included the nature of the whereabouts of former city attorney Shaem Spencer, who is now a district court judge in Glen Burnie. I was informed that an unofficial city delegation was sent to heckle the honorable magistrate, a field trip that I imagine to be hilarious.
7:20
I noticed that Alderman Paone is drinking a diet coke--an endurance technique that I pioneered some 18 months ago when this blog first began. Well done, sir.
7:36
The presentation is over. I believe that now the public will be heard.
Bill: O-05-08, to correct a technical error in the code regarding free standing signs.
-P/Z director John Arason gives a brief.
-nobody speaks for or against.
Bill: O-18-08, more technical changes to.....wait for it......sign regulations!
-Arason testifies again.
-I dare say that the public is again, ambivalent. Alderman Arnett seems to know the deal.
7:42
I will send $2 to anybody who writes a comment while I am writing this blog. You only pay the $4.95 shipping and handling.
7:42:30
Of shipping and handling, which is the more expensive undertaking?
7:42:38
Handling!
7:44
My goodness, I think it's easier to make yourself a criminal in this town by putting up an illegal sign than anything else. If I were the Downdown Dictator (one of my pet name's for the office of mayor), the sign code would read like this:
15.535.9525 Signs:
If you put up a sign, we will grab 20 random people who passed by your sign. If none of those people say "that is a dumb-ass sign", or "who thought this would be OK?", then you can keep the sign.
7:50
Alan Hyatt, a local mogul, is representing Shopper's Food Warehouse--who apparently have been aggrieved via signs.
7:52
For the record, my favorite signs are THIS ONE (watch for immigrants cross the road!), and THIS ONE (not overly wordy, yet you understand completely the choice you have to make.)
7:54
Classie Hoyle, whose ward this concerns, has not commented at all during this exchange.
7:56
Bill: O-30-08, clarifying the duties of DNEP and the Public Works Administration.
-an unidentified employee is testifying.
-small government tip of the day: if two government departments can't figure out who does what, maybe one of those departments doesn't need to be there
-since when was Public Works an 'Administration' and not a 'Department'?
-a man with a briefcase is talking about sprinklers. I don't know why this is relevant, but then again I haven't read this bill, and he just referenced the bill, so he is probably making a valid point.
8:16
I haven't stopped blogging, I've just stopped paying attention to the meeting. I plan to be interested soon.
8:23
Ok, I read O-30, and there is a provision that changes the requirement to install sprinklers from a renovation that exceeds 50% of the market value of a house to a renovation that increases living space by more than 50%. I don't know if this is the first time this came up, but people are really focused on it.
8:30
Bills: O-31-08 and O-34-08, reducing the Homestead Credit to either 1o5% or 102% depending on which bill you like
-Doug Smith: reduce it to 102%
-Mayor Moyer suggests that the 110% level is necessary to achieve the level of services that the citizens have come to expect.
-Randy Landis (who gets called "Gimpy" by the mayor on the way up to the podium): also likes both proposals, likes the reduction to 102% better
-fyi, for the purposes of this bill, 102% means that the tax-assessed value of your house cannot increase by more than 2% each year. currently, it can increase by 10% (or 110% using the semantics of this bill)
-Mayor Moyer applauds herself for reducing the property tax rate, a statement that doesn't
matter
-Mike Dye: in favor of both, don't care which percentage is chosen as long as any effort is made to lower the percentage. the real purpose of this is transparency (because if the Homestead Credit is low, then you can only increase taxes through the rate, and everybody knows about it). Mike is taking some direct shots at the mayor on this because she let the credit be 10% then claimed to lower taxes because she lowered the rate.
-Brian Gill: the transparency argument is a good argument.
-Mike Dye: "I have heard a host of excuses!". Brilliant! The Mayor keeps saying "don't just complain to us, because the state and the county do it to", and Mike says "right now, I'm worried about the city". Very awesome.
8:47
I lost track of where we are because a luminary came to speak with me.
Ok, nobody spoke about O-32-08 (City of Annapolis Exempt Service) or O-33-08, a confusing bill that I will post about soon.
8:51
Legislative Action!
O-24-07: Sandwich Board Signs!! Specifically where and when they are allowed. WITHDRAWN.
R-45-08, job description and pay grade for elections board position. PASSES. 9-0 vote.
R-52-08, creating a historic West St. gateway committee.
-Alderman Stankivic proposes an amendment that there should be a person from each ward on the committee, and somebody who may or may not work for the city is at the podium arguing against this. So, the city is arguing with itself on this amendment.
-The above mentioned person just named like 300 people who are already on the committee, and Alderman Paone just said "well, it sounds like you have everybody represented but the residents", and I just upgraded to the platinum membership to the Alderman Paone fan club.
-Alderman Cordle: this is a moot point because the state owns part of the road.
-The '1 person from every ward' amendment passes (I think).
-bill PASSES. 9-0 vote.
9:06
Alderman Stankivic excuses herself.
R-54-08 (first reader), Establishment of a Council Compensation Commission. passes/referred to committee. Rules suspended and this bill PASSES on second and third readers. 9-0 vote.
9:08
Adjourned.
Showing posts with label signs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label signs. Show all posts
Monday, October 27, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
City Council Meeting 1/28: Live Blog
Welcome to the second ever live blog of a city council meeting! The atmosphere is warm and welcoming!
6:30 p.m.
The city clerk inquires if I am married at the moment. I informed her that I was not and that I enjoy drinks after city council meetings. I then immediately hacked into Mrs. Politics' computer and disabled her internet browsing functions so she cannot read this.
(Note: Everything in italics is false.)
6:59.
Alderman Sam gives me a prototype version of the city of Annapolis reusable canvas bags. I will upload a picture this week.
(test)
OMG the blogger.com servers just went down for like 12 minutes. I am so far behind!
Ok, the meeting was adjourned at 7:07.
7:09
Alderman Sam gives me a prototype of the new, official, city of Annapolis reusable canvas bags! I will post a picture at some point.
(Note #2: I love Mrs. Politics very much. Today she gave me an edible arrangement, which is a group of fruits, dipped in chocolate, and arranged to look like a bouquet of flowers! Delicious!)
7:17
Public hearing opens for O-06-07, a highly technical and procedural ordinance concerning review time for legislation. Local Eastport activist Chris LaDue opposes it (I think) on the grounds that it reduces transparency.
7:22
Hearing for O-24-07, which allows those tent-style sandwich/menu boards to be places on sidewalks outside restaurants. The bill would formalize a practice that already exists, specifying various standards. The planning and zoning staff thinks this is fine, in principle, however there is concern that some of the signs are ugly.
Residents are concerned that the signs clog the sidewalks, and businesses want maximum advertising. Alderman Arnett raises a good point--who will decide which signs are allowed (pretty) or made illegal (ugly). Noteworthy is that current sings are required to meet certain requirements for sidewalk space still available.
7:31
Alderman Cordle suggests that sandwich boards should be made to include ash trays to accommodate the smokers that will now have to stand on the sidewalk as of February 1st. Hilarity ensues.
Alderman Sam noted how crowded our sidewalks would be with the sandwich boards and police segways! A swipe at the Mayor?! Total hilarity.
The Mayor notes that the city uses sandwich board sings, and implies that the council should not do something ridiculous like ban them.
7:38
Debate about sandwich board signs is still going on. Chris LaDue is talking again, which he tends to do, but he is telling the council to enforce the laws that already exist, which is this blog's favorite solution to almost every problem. He says that this is a "solution looking for a problem". The mayor suggests "perhaps you weren't here when there were consistent problems and people wanted solutions".
7:39
John Spencer informs me that since the start of his tenure, legislation concerning signs has quadrupled. Debate on this ends.
7:40
Hearing on O-27-05 begins, concerning what appears to be annexation rules for including federal property in city boundary lines. I confess that I haven't read the bill. Doug Smith, the ward 1 President, testifies to his confusion about what this would mean. How would the wards be affected? I don't know. Nobody knows.
(Note #3: somebody knows.)
7:43
It occurs to me that this concerns the Naval Academy. Prevailing wisdom in the back of the room (a.k.a. the "cool" area, a.k.a. the VIP area) is that there would be no registered voters in the Naval academy, because their voter registrations would be where they lived before.
7:45
HERE COMES TONY EVANS!!!! YES!!!
He tells us that China has banned plastic bags. Relevance points: -10,000.
He then brings up concerns about what services we would have to provide the Naval Academy. Relevance points: +16.
Ooh, he suggests taking the mayor's vote away--165 bonus points.
Sadly, I have lost interest in what Tony is saying.
Wait.......he just suggests that adding 4,000 people is a perfect way to stick it to Ward 1 by diluting their voter base!
The Mayor seems to know a lot about this, and just brought up some good points which I will tell you if you email me. She then ended in a passively aggressive fashion, thanking Tony for his testimony.
7:52
The meeting is out of control. The Mayor was arguing with Tony for a while. But, Alderman Sam just jumped in, failing to resist the urge to comment on plastic bags. He claims that while in college he obtained the journal of an important Chinese person, who said that "we will sell the USA the rope to hang itself", apparently referring to plastic bags.
7:53
Order is regained.
7:53:30
Hearing begins for O-53-07: green buildings! The Sierra Club naturally is in favor.
The difference between this bill and O-27-07 is that this bill deals with private construction, whereas the other bill provides internal standards for the city to meet.
(Note #4: I am about to take a bathroom break, plus I am going to buy a soda, which means I am going to have to take another bathroom break before the night is out. If you need immediate assistance, you can view the council meeting on Comcast channel 99. If, however, you are like myself and have Verizon Fios television, you have to wait for me to return, because they don't show the meetings.)
8:03
I'm back. I thought the soda machine didn't give me the soda, but it was just hidden. Exact change was dispensed.
A gentleman is speaking about LEED standards (which are some type of green building standards), and states that such standards for residential construction is not feasible at this time. Builders simply have not had enough time to make it economical. "LEED for homes is too much", his extended testimony can be reduced to. He suggests a more obtainable standard that would be a more moderate step.
8:08
The gentleman basically says that low income housing with LEED standards is impossible without government subsidy.
8:09
Another homebuilder type is testifying against the bill for several reasons. She also questions the credentials of the "Green Building Council", which I was wondering about as well. The Green Building Council would specify the building standards.
Building to LEED standards, she says, costs 12% more and saves $250-$295 per year. If true, this is very interesting, if true, which is nice, because not much else is interesting tonight.*
(*with the exception of my humorous commentary.)
8:15
The kind lady just said that home builders are like aircraft carriers. Geez, that's one business I don't want to be in.
8:26
Various people are speaking, some in favor of green buildings. Various other people are annoyed that time requirements for speakers are not being enforced, which they rarely are.
8:28
Ok, that's done. Next, nobody wants to testify for O-57-07, so we are done with that.
Now for O-58-07: to renew the leases for the people who do the boat shows. A guy in a suit from, of all places, the Sailing Hall of Fame is the first to testify. He notes the relationship between the boat show lease and the doings of the SHOF. He seems to be upset that nothing in the proposed new lease with the boat shows takes into account possible collaboration with the SHOF, nor acknowledges any of their interests. It was quite boring.
However, another guy in a sweater (not a suit), said a respectful 'up yours' to the suit guy. Guy #2 apparently was a founding member of the SHOF, but represents the boat shows, and has reserved his testimony on this matter for 38 years, only coming forward now to promise that the SHOF's needs are being met.
8:41
I have determined that I am not staying a minute past 9:00.
8:44
O-61-07: grant funding. Alderman Stankivic wants to make grantees pay a percentage (50% for now) of any money they get from a city grant. Doug Smith says it's a good idea. Tony Evans says it's a good idea because we needn't have children raised entirely by the state. I say it's a good idea because it incentivises organizations to validate their market worthiness.
A member of a non-profit testifies against this because Annapolis grants are used to "leverage" other grants, which I'm assuming means that other governments use grants from the city as a qualification to give their grants, reducing their need to do their own investigation. I actually think this is a valid point.
This one's done.
8:53
O-62-07, hearing on lease for 'New Year's Annapolis'. Seems benign, although having not read the lease, it seems like the city will lose money as a basic premise of this arrangement. I'll try to check it out.
Alderman Israel says that if event planning company makes money, that the city then shouldn't have to lose money. This supports my thought that the city is willing to lose money initially.
I am ASSUMING that the following things will happen, because it is 9:01 and I am leaving.
Legislation:
O-04-08 passes (first reader).
R-03-08 passes (second and third reader). Reclassifies civil service compensation.
6:30 p.m.
The city clerk inquires if I am married at the moment. I informed her that I was not and that I enjoy drinks after city council meetings. I then immediately hacked into Mrs. Politics' computer and disabled her internet browsing functions so she cannot read this.
(Note: Everything in italics is false.)
6:59.
Alderman Sam gives me a prototype version of the city of Annapolis reusable canvas bags. I will upload a picture this week.
(test)
OMG the blogger.com servers just went down for like 12 minutes. I am so far behind!
Ok, the meeting was adjourned at 7:07.
7:09
Alderman Sam gives me a prototype of the new, official, city of Annapolis reusable canvas bags! I will post a picture at some point.
(Note #2: I love Mrs. Politics very much. Today she gave me an edible arrangement, which is a group of fruits, dipped in chocolate, and arranged to look like a bouquet of flowers! Delicious!)
7:17
Public hearing opens for O-06-07, a highly technical and procedural ordinance concerning review time for legislation. Local Eastport activist Chris LaDue opposes it (I think) on the grounds that it reduces transparency.
7:22
Hearing for O-24-07, which allows those tent-style sandwich/menu boards to be places on sidewalks outside restaurants. The bill would formalize a practice that already exists, specifying various standards. The planning and zoning staff thinks this is fine, in principle, however there is concern that some of the signs are ugly.
Residents are concerned that the signs clog the sidewalks, and businesses want maximum advertising. Alderman Arnett raises a good point--who will decide which signs are allowed (pretty) or made illegal (ugly). Noteworthy is that current sings are required to meet certain requirements for sidewalk space still available.
7:31
Alderman Cordle suggests that sandwich boards should be made to include ash trays to accommodate the smokers that will now have to stand on the sidewalk as of February 1st. Hilarity ensues.
Alderman Sam noted how crowded our sidewalks would be with the sandwich boards and police segways! A swipe at the Mayor?! Total hilarity.
The Mayor notes that the city uses sandwich board sings, and implies that the council should not do something ridiculous like ban them.
7:38
Debate about sandwich board signs is still going on. Chris LaDue is talking again, which he tends to do, but he is telling the council to enforce the laws that already exist, which is this blog's favorite solution to almost every problem. He says that this is a "solution looking for a problem". The mayor suggests "perhaps you weren't here when there were consistent problems and people wanted solutions".
7:39
John Spencer informs me that since the start of his tenure, legislation concerning signs has quadrupled. Debate on this ends.
7:40
Hearing on O-27-05 begins, concerning what appears to be annexation rules for including federal property in city boundary lines. I confess that I haven't read the bill. Doug Smith, the ward 1 President, testifies to his confusion about what this would mean. How would the wards be affected? I don't know. Nobody knows.
(Note #3: somebody knows.)
7:43
It occurs to me that this concerns the Naval Academy. Prevailing wisdom in the back of the room (a.k.a. the "cool" area, a.k.a. the VIP area) is that there would be no registered voters in the Naval academy, because their voter registrations would be where they lived before.
7:45
HERE COMES TONY EVANS!!!! YES!!!
He tells us that China has banned plastic bags. Relevance points: -10,000.
He then brings up concerns about what services we would have to provide the Naval Academy. Relevance points: +16.
Ooh, he suggests taking the mayor's vote away--165 bonus points.
Sadly, I have lost interest in what Tony is saying.
Wait.......he just suggests that adding 4,000 people is a perfect way to stick it to Ward 1 by diluting their voter base!
The Mayor seems to know a lot about this, and just brought up some good points which I will tell you if you email me. She then ended in a passively aggressive fashion, thanking Tony for his testimony.
7:52
The meeting is out of control. The Mayor was arguing with Tony for a while. But, Alderman Sam just jumped in, failing to resist the urge to comment on plastic bags. He claims that while in college he obtained the journal of an important Chinese person, who said that "we will sell the USA the rope to hang itself", apparently referring to plastic bags.
7:53
Order is regained.
7:53:30
Hearing begins for O-53-07: green buildings! The Sierra Club naturally is in favor.
The difference between this bill and O-27-07 is that this bill deals with private construction, whereas the other bill provides internal standards for the city to meet.
(Note #4: I am about to take a bathroom break, plus I am going to buy a soda, which means I am going to have to take another bathroom break before the night is out. If you need immediate assistance, you can view the council meeting on Comcast channel 99. If, however, you are like myself and have Verizon Fios television, you have to wait for me to return, because they don't show the meetings.)
8:03
I'm back. I thought the soda machine didn't give me the soda, but it was just hidden. Exact change was dispensed.
A gentleman is speaking about LEED standards (which are some type of green building standards), and states that such standards for residential construction is not feasible at this time. Builders simply have not had enough time to make it economical. "LEED for homes is too much", his extended testimony can be reduced to. He suggests a more obtainable standard that would be a more moderate step.
8:08
The gentleman basically says that low income housing with LEED standards is impossible without government subsidy.
8:09
Another homebuilder type is testifying against the bill for several reasons. She also questions the credentials of the "Green Building Council", which I was wondering about as well. The Green Building Council would specify the building standards.
Building to LEED standards, she says, costs 12% more and saves $250-$295 per year. If true, this is very interesting, if true, which is nice, because not much else is interesting tonight.*
(*with the exception of my humorous commentary.)
8:15
The kind lady just said that home builders are like aircraft carriers. Geez, that's one business I don't want to be in.
8:26
Various people are speaking, some in favor of green buildings. Various other people are annoyed that time requirements for speakers are not being enforced, which they rarely are.
8:28
Ok, that's done. Next, nobody wants to testify for O-57-07, so we are done with that.
Now for O-58-07: to renew the leases for the people who do the boat shows. A guy in a suit from, of all places, the Sailing Hall of Fame is the first to testify. He notes the relationship between the boat show lease and the doings of the SHOF. He seems to be upset that nothing in the proposed new lease with the boat shows takes into account possible collaboration with the SHOF, nor acknowledges any of their interests. It was quite boring.
However, another guy in a sweater (not a suit), said a respectful 'up yours' to the suit guy. Guy #2 apparently was a founding member of the SHOF, but represents the boat shows, and has reserved his testimony on this matter for 38 years, only coming forward now to promise that the SHOF's needs are being met.
8:41
I have determined that I am not staying a minute past 9:00.
8:44
O-61-07: grant funding. Alderman Stankivic wants to make grantees pay a percentage (50% for now) of any money they get from a city grant. Doug Smith says it's a good idea. Tony Evans says it's a good idea because we needn't have children raised entirely by the state. I say it's a good idea because it incentivises organizations to validate their market worthiness.
A member of a non-profit testifies against this because Annapolis grants are used to "leverage" other grants, which I'm assuming means that other governments use grants from the city as a qualification to give their grants, reducing their need to do their own investigation. I actually think this is a valid point.
This one's done.
8:53
O-62-07, hearing on lease for 'New Year's Annapolis'. Seems benign, although having not read the lease, it seems like the city will lose money as a basic premise of this arrangement. I'll try to check it out.
Alderman Israel says that if event planning company makes money, that the city then shouldn't have to lose money. This supports my thought that the city is willing to lose money initially.
I am ASSUMING that the following things will happen, because it is 9:01 and I am leaving.
Legislation:
O-04-08 passes (first reader).
R-03-08 passes (second and third reader). Reclassifies civil service compensation.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Signs: Part 3
A crazy week of work and travel has caused a bit of a blog backlog for me, but I am going to try and catch up this week.
Recently, this blog promised to bring you every bit of news about signs that there was. Wednesday's Capital provided a duo of letters to the editor about roadside signs, including one from the county councilman who reportedly got distracted by a sign and almost got into an accident.
(Speaking of roadside distractions, I was driving back to Maryland from Long Island, NY, via the New Jersey turnpike. Let's just say I'm happy to live in Maryland.)
Andiamo!
I've read the many articles and letters about the sign bill introduced by me and County Councilman Josh Cohen, D-Annapolis. A few things have been under-emphasized in the press coverage and thus overlooked by many readers.
The bill does nothing new.
Hold the phone......
Moving signs are already prohibited under county law.
So what are we doing here?
I swear, if we simply enforced the laws we currently have on the books, it would solve so many problems.
Currently, electronic signs must remain "on a cycle of not less than five seconds", suggesting that during any five-second cycle, the image on an electronic sign may not change (and thus may not move). The bill recently introduced simply clarifies existing law to make it clear to would-be sign purchasers and owners that motion on a sign is prohibited.
Recently, this blog promised to bring you every bit of news about signs that there was. Wednesday's Capital provided a duo of letters to the editor about roadside signs, including one from the county councilman who reportedly got distracted by a sign and almost got into an accident.
(Speaking of roadside distractions, I was driving back to Maryland from Long Island, NY, via the New Jersey turnpike. Let's just say I'm happy to live in Maryland.)
Andiamo!
I've read the many articles and letters about the sign bill introduced by me and County Councilman Josh Cohen, D-Annapolis. A few things have been under-emphasized in the press coverage and thus overlooked by many readers.
The bill does nothing new.
Hold the phone......
Moving signs are already prohibited under county law.
So what are we doing here?
I swear, if we simply enforced the laws we currently have on the books, it would solve so many problems.
Currently, electronic signs must remain "on a cycle of not less than five seconds", suggesting that during any five-second cycle, the image on an electronic sign may not change (and thus may not move). The bill recently introduced simply clarifies existing law to make it clear to would-be sign purchasers and owners that motion on a sign is prohibited.
I would like to point out how arbitrary this bit of code is. What makes a sign on a 5 second cycle so different from one on a 4 second cycle that one is legal and one is not?
If a government can do something that benefits all parties involved and harms nobody, such an action is called Pareto optimal and should always be undertaken. In most cases, however, governments have to operate in zero-sum games (or negative non-zero sum games)--which basically means that if one person becomes better off, another person becomes worse off. In other words, one interest becomes better off at the expense of another.
In this case, the county has to balance the rights of businesses to make money however they want with the interests of the public. Should the government prohibit bribery? Sure. Should they prohibit signs that move? Does the improvement to society justify the restriction on the businesses' free speech? Is this the best way to solve the problem of bad drivers? Does it even solve the problem in the first place?
It is plain wrong to suggest that the bill is an unconstitutional restraint on speech. The sign bill is not content-based; rather, it is content neutral.
Of course it is restriction on free speech, even if constitutional. They want to do something--to run their business in a certain way--and you are telling them they can't. I don't know what 'content neutral' means; has anyone heard of this?
A bill passes muster if it addresses a substantial government interest and leaves open ample alternative channels of communication. In this case, the government does have a substantial interest in driver safety, and there are plenty of ways to communicate an advertisement other than on a moving electronic sign.
Let's get something straight: the government does not have any interests of its own. Its role is to serve the public interest when the private market cannot. And since when is the test of a bill whether it addresses a problem and encourages communication? A bill passes muster if it is a net benefit to society: that is, if the benefit to society in general outweighs the harm done and additional expense incurred by the bill.
Given the spate of accidents in the last week in Anne Arundel County and the sharp increase in accidents nation-wide owing to driver distraction, it is important that our county focus on driver safety. To that end, readers should expect more legislation coming from my office aimed at minimizing distractions on the road.
County Councilman JAMIE BENOIT, District 4, Odenton
This is just like the argument against the plastic bag bill. I will concede that driver distraction is an issue. But, if you were to go on the gameshow Family Fued, and 100 people were surveyed as to what was the biggest driver distraction, 99 of them would say..........CELL PHONES! (1 person would say roadside memorials are the biggest distraction. Read: foreshadow.) This is obvious. Solve the cell phone problem first, then maybe we can talk about the oh so horrible distractions that are roadside signs.
Let's hear from someone else.
County legislation to limit of ban video board and roadside advertising is but the first step in removing the unnecessary clutter from the side of our roads. The increasing proliferation of roadside memorials is much more intrusive.
Since I have read through this entire letter, I can inform you that the writer is referring to the small, white crosses, perhaps with flowers, that that families and friends put at the sites where they have lost loved ones to traffic accidents. At least that's what I think he's talking about. Let's hear more.
While roadside and video advertising can be justified as providing a service for taxpaying businesses in the community, there is little that can be said, from a societal perspective, to justify these memorials.
First of all, the signs do not provide a service as much as they are the right of the businesses. Second of all, while there may not be much in support of such memorials, there is not much against them either. Does anyone have a problem with these things? Especially if they are maintained, and/or removed after a period of time? Roadside memorials are, like, the 255th most important problem that I am worried about. That portion of the list goes something like this:
254. My rose bush produced fuschia flowers instead of magenta flowers.
255. Roadside memorials.
256. Why is 'colonel' pronounced 'ker-nal'?
Drivers may be interested in a service that is being advertised. But the vast majority of drivers have no interest in the memorial. It is much more a me thing than a we thing.
Although such memorials benefit only a few people, we still have to look at the balance. By aiding in the grieving process, how much do these memorials help the victims' families? A lot. And how much do they harm anyone else? Barely, if at all. Since the victims' families are indeed a part of society, and since the rest of society is unaffected, don't roadside memorials provide a net benefit to society?
I am sympathetic to the loss of those who erect the memorials. But remembrances should be in the privacy of one's home, at the grave site, and in one's heart.
What is worse is that there is an ever-increasing need to make these memorials bigger and more ostentatious.
Another sore point is that these memorials seem to have become permanent fixtures in many spots along public highways, median strips, and front yards. Simple flower arrangements, kept for a short time, would be much more appropriate.
So, if our County Council members are attempting to get rid of roadside eyesores and hazards, they should add these memorials to the list.
ALAN McALLISTER, Severna Park
I have never really seen a person with an 'anti-memorial' policy. I suppose I would support some type of limitations as to the size and neatness of such memorials, but is it such a problem that our elected officials should spend their time and our money legislating it? Probably not.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Signs: Part 2
AP swears this single, solemn promise to its loyal readers: every time a sign makes the news we will cover it.
(AP has always been fascinated with signs. They have the potential to be very useful--a picture conveys a thousand words, and so forth. They can also go very wrong--graffiti, overgrown trees, and vandals all threaten the viability of the sign franchise. My favorite signs of all time:
1. Watch for immigrants trying to cross the border!
2. A very useful traffic pattern sign. Not too many words, and you understand completely what the sign is telling you.)
And now for this sign. Apparently the city and the Moreland Pkwy Holding Company are involved in a legal dispute regarding who should fix the awful potholes on that street. Businesses on that street, fed up with customers who won't drive to their businesses as a result of the poor driving conditions, have taken matters into their own hands, only to be quelled by the planning and zoning gestapo.
It just strikes me as funny...when the city doesn't want to fix the road, the road belongs to private owners. When the city doesn't like a sign on the road, the road belongs to the city and they can order the sign removed.
This kind of hypocrisy happens all the time with government. I am in the catering business, and I am required to comply with health department regulations. You have to get certified by the health department in order to operate. I have to spend many resources doing this, but if I (God forbid) were to get somebody sick and that person sues me, the health department will not help me at all. If they deem me qualified to receive certification, which they demand, shouldn't they be partially responsible if in fact I was not qualified.
I am using this example to illustrate the nature of governments. So often the government does what is convenient, not necessarily what is fair. Similarly, in many cases our local governments are confrontational. If public sector, and private sector, and citizens all work together--instead of against each other--we could get a lot more done.
So for you workers who know how to pave roads, I will be happy to cater your lunch when you fix Moreland Parkway.
(AP has always been fascinated with signs. They have the potential to be very useful--a picture conveys a thousand words, and so forth. They can also go very wrong--graffiti, overgrown trees, and vandals all threaten the viability of the sign franchise. My favorite signs of all time:
1. Watch for immigrants trying to cross the border!
2. A very useful traffic pattern sign. Not too many words, and you understand completely what the sign is telling you.)
And now for this sign. Apparently the city and the Moreland Pkwy Holding Company are involved in a legal dispute regarding who should fix the awful potholes on that street. Businesses on that street, fed up with customers who won't drive to their businesses as a result of the poor driving conditions, have taken matters into their own hands, only to be quelled by the planning and zoning gestapo.
It just strikes me as funny...when the city doesn't want to fix the road, the road belongs to private owners. When the city doesn't like a sign on the road, the road belongs to the city and they can order the sign removed.
This kind of hypocrisy happens all the time with government. I am in the catering business, and I am required to comply with health department regulations. You have to get certified by the health department in order to operate. I have to spend many resources doing this, but if I (God forbid) were to get somebody sick and that person sues me, the health department will not help me at all. If they deem me qualified to receive certification, which they demand, shouldn't they be partially responsible if in fact I was not qualified.
I am using this example to illustrate the nature of governments. So often the government does what is convenient, not necessarily what is fair. Similarly, in many cases our local governments are confrontational. If public sector, and private sector, and citizens all work together--instead of against each other--we could get a lot more done.
So for you workers who know how to pave roads, I will be happy to cater your lunch when you fix Moreland Parkway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)