Thursday, December 10, 2009

Is Chandler's Sign Code Worse Than Oro Valley? You Decide!

There are those that believe Oro Valley's sign code needs to be addressed, and changed. Among those that recently had their voices heard at a Council Meeting were the real estate community as it pertains to "Open House" signs.

They should consider themselves lucky they are not in the used car business in Chandler Az.

Read why here---courtesy of our friend Clint Bolick at the Goldwater Institute.

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/4207

(Click on Az Republic article for more)

10 comments:

Victorian Cowgirl said...

I'm more concerned with the idea of using sex to sell automobiles (or any other product that has nothing to do with sex). This approach has the exact opposite effect on me. I find it offensive and therefore would never buy anything from a company that used this sales ploy. It's degrading to women. I wonder how many of the "scantily clad mannequins" were male.

And I certainly don't want to start seeing this tactic used in OV. It's tacky.

Oro Valley Mom said...

I agree, Cowgirl.

In addition, it's the state that decided to usurp local authority by requiring municipalities to allow human signs. Now businesses think they can get away with not paying humans by putting up mannequins instead. Maybe the state should worry about funding education and let the local governments worry about local sign codes.

Zev said...

Has anyone ever heard of smart advertising to bring in consumers and/or sell a product? Are we becoming (have we become)a society where 'anything goes in order to 'get'? The ability for us to remain a society possessing the right to 'freedom of speech' requires that we also exercise responsibility and sensibility in what we say and how we act; the alternatives are the scary components of anarchy.

'THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE' (et al) - hmmm?

Additionally, these crazy roadside 'signs' are distractive enough to be a concern for the safe operation of motor vehicular traffic. I do know of an instance in Santa Clara, California where 'unusual' signage (temporary) was being hoisted in place by a crane and the 'observant' driver of a car crashed into the vehicle in front of her - she sued the company having the sign erected, she won!

AZCactus1 said...

This is all a bit ridiculous.

However, to be clear, the state has not usurped any power from the local authority. That would imply that the state took such power by force and without right.

As the sovereign, all power ultimately rests with the state, and the state may delegate certain powers to local governments if it (the legislature) so wishes.

That said, the state may also retract such a delegation of authority when it sees fit. This is a situation where the state has exercised such power.

OV Mom- I do agree with you that the state should focus far more attention on properly funding our public school system!

Zev said...

AZ Cactus
Just to clarify - my post was not to pass legal judgment in this matter; following from the post of VC and OV Mom it simply was a statement to illustrate a point that 'it might be legal but is it right'. And, incidentally, my recollection has it that some kind of State 'mandate/interpretation' held that [human signs could not be disallowed]; this was brought out some time ago in a Council meeting relative to this subject in a discussion as to how the implementation of same might be controlled. I dunno for certain as the realities got mixed in with the 'hows'.

As to your statement that "this is all a bit ridiculous". Is it? Society seems to be headed towards a 'free-for-all' and I don't find that to be ridiculous.

AZCactus1 said...

Zev:

I appreciate your clarification. If I may clarify, I was specifically referring to the usurping comment made by OV Mom, and not your comment in particular.

And I have to say I don't see society in the same light as you. While society may have become more permissive (a 'free-for-all' in your words) than say in the 1950s, much good has come in that as well.

Abandoning a society of judgment, as can be said about the 1950s, allowed our society to embrace civil rights, eliminate the Jim Crow era, embrace gender equality in the workplace, and further expand the marketplace so that more individuals could participate.

Has this had a detrimental impact on society as well? Sure. But the overall trajectory of our society, in my humble opinion, is a positive one.

I believe we live in one of the greatest eras in history, and I greatly look forward to seeing the contributions that our younger generations will make to our nation in the future.

The world is getting smaller, and better connected. At this moment, the potential for human achievement is infinite, and the innovations that will take place in technology and medicine in the next 50-100 years will be truly remarkable.

Thank you for the indulgence.

Happy Holidays to all!

Zev said...

Cactus, it is a good thing to hear, clearly stated, the positives that you put forth; I sincerely hope that your vision comes to fruition. While mine are not so positive, tainted perhaps because I have seen so much of past progressions trampled by divisiveness, I yet have made a conscious decision, for myself, that, at least within my community, I will try to move forward with an ideal of assisting to heal the wounds that have been festering here for too long now.

To you, Cactus, and to all, happy holidays and happy life!

Chuck Davis said...

one thing that OV stands for:

OVer-regulation.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Was out running errands today and noticed an OV truck driving around and placing big yellow "Violation" signs on top of some "Open House" signs that had been placed along some sidewalks and intersections. The "violation" sign completely covered the open house sign so that no one could see/read the realtor's sign and know where the open house was located.

I'm sure the realtor's involved will be quite angry when they return to remove their signs and discover the reason why no one showed up at their open houses, but I'm happy to see that OV is finally taking it's sign code seriously.

Town Hall will probably be crowded on Monday with all the angry realtors showing up to whine. But businesses should have to play by the rules just like us peasants do!

Personally, the Open House signs do not bother me. It's the blatant disrespect for the rules/ordinances by business owners that bothers me. Either follow the rules or work to change them.

Zev said...

Following from VC's post, the problem is that there are regulations in place and there are those who choose to ignore them. 'Overregulation' can be real but such needs to be 'defined' as to how, what, where, why, and 'how much'; simply ignoring the 'rules' and placing signs in a helter skelter manner is 'sign anarchy'. I resent driving through a beautiful part of OV on a nice and quiet Sunday and having to view 10-20 signs at one or more intersections just placed like a bunch of tossed candy wrappers wherever a 'hole' is available.I would venture that some of the 'parents' have paid their fees and others have not. Is that fair?

Yes, the realtor sign ordinances in OV perhaps need to be updated and re-defined and that is supposed to take place 'soon'; until then the realtors need to observe the 'now'.