Should the city council outlaw temporary signs?

answered 2013-01-08 10:48:17 -0500

aurora
111 ● 1 ● 2 ● 8

updated 2013-01-08 10:54:54 -0500

In my opinion that is the silliest thing they had discussed! It was either the allowance or all together ban of street signs (e.g. restaurant menus, sales, going out of business, etc.) in efforts to thwart the illegal placement of signs (e.g. random political signs on Fishkill Ave). Going out of business signs!? Really? You're going to give those people a hard time on top of a hard time? I honestly find it a little ridiculous that all local businesses would have to sacrifice their advertisements for the wrongs of others. One excuse they used was that the 4 1/2 feet sidewalks are too small to accommodate the signs, claiming "there's no where to walk." They spoke of possibly including a clause that would limit the size of a sign. I think that would be okay, but sorry, in the 15 years I have lived here, I have never found a street sign to be such a bother to step around. And I've admired the charm these signs have brought to Main St. To me they show progress and personality. I've watched Beacon as it has made its way out of the gutter. It's the council's job to work a little harder and longer to solve petty issues like unlawful sign placement in a way that would benefit the city, not hinder or limit it. Our local, privately owned businesses shouldn't have to do the work for them. The council adjourned the topic until February. I plan on attending the next meeting to gain a clearer understanding of what such a law would entail and I hope to hear language that would preserve the signs on Main St.