At last week's council meeting, the sign code that was due to expire, was continued until August of this year, or until a final sign code is adopted.
It appears to us that there was some justification to continue with this program that was unanimously approved by council---but not enough.
While some merchants indicated signs increased their business, others saw a decline.
That sounds like the signs were "hit or miss," and may have, or had not made any difference, except to make Oro Valley look, as my friend The Zeeman suggested: "schlocky."
Read The Explorer article here.
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2011/01/26/news/doc4d3f4ea95ff8a866003595.txt
Read The Az Star article here
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/northwest/article_2533121d-e7d8-5811-b862-f9e042f3dce3.html
3 comments:
The article in the Explorer was a mistake. The temporary code was extended 30 days pass the completion of the new Sign Code. I agree the whole process and results were hit & miss. Not only that, only 8 businesses requested A-frame signs, and they did little for those businesses. Immediately after hearing the results, one council member suggested A-frames be allowed under the new Sign Code. Also, the Public Hearing for the New Sign Code is now March 2, 2011, and NOT February 16, as had been stated.
Cares for OV---Thanks for the clarification.
It appears that the concern that many of us had that this mayor and council will do whatever the business community requests, regardless of the impact on the community or the citizens has once again come to fruition.
Being they won the election, I believe it's fair to say; "to the victor goes the spoils."
Oro Valley: A Town of Excellence! Yeah! Sure!
What irritates me is that the town issued 35 temporary sign permits and only 16 of those businesses submitted the "required economic data" to the town in return.
That's less than half! Those businesses should have their signs removed immediately for non-compliance.
Then, of those businesses that DID submit the new data, some of them also "initiated or increased" their advertising campaigns at the same time! Wow! That sure is a scientific way of determining if the temporary signs worked. Did their business increase because of the temporary signs or did it increase because of the newspaper advertisements?
So the 75% vs. 25% figures are useless. The town is correct in stating that the data collected only shows a partial picture.
I suspected all along that the data collected from the use of the temporary signs would be useless because the plan was ill-conceived from the beginning. I say this as someone who worked in medicine for many years. I know how a study should be conducted. There needs to be strict parameters and strict compliance, otherwise the results are useless.
Post a Comment