This, from John Musolf:
I attended the public meeting on changing the town code for outdoor displays. Six Oro Valley residents showed up. We were outnumbered by business owners and town officials (Lou Waters, Joe Hornat, Steve Solomon, Satish Hiremath and town employees). It was a setup. There were 3 tables. The assumption was that we would discuss things at the first table about whether we favored no outdoor displays to extensive outdoors displays. The second table showed us a sample store front that recommended 50% of the outdoor space be allocated to the outdoor displays. The third table was to consider alternatives if the change didn't pass. The businesses suggested that as an alternative: the sign code be looser and the fee for an outdoor displays be lessened. The residents basically got what we will deserve regardless of the outcome.
The Town has 41,000 residents and only six of us showed up. Welcome to Schlock USA.
The fact that only six residents attended the meeting speaks volumes, doesn't it?
Here's the link to the KVOA article reporting on this meeting.
Here's the link to the Explorer's report on the meeting.
---
4 comments:
Channel 13 Quote:
“For at least one resident, as long as the area is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act and is safe, businesses should be able to display what they want.
"Once they've established those two things, let the outdoor displays be whatever the business community wants," said Oro Valley resident John Musolf”.
The news article by Channel 13 took some of my quotes out of context and made it sound as if I supported the change to the town code for outdoor merchandise displays which I do not. At the second table which was called "Layout" we were presented with a “sample store display” that stated it should be limited to 50% of the store front façade. I did say the rule of 50% of the store outdoor facade was trying to make "one size fit all" control and was not fair to all businesses because of their differences in the size of their store front. I did say that outdoor space should be "safe and ADA" compliant if they would change the code. I did not say that the outdoor displays should be whatever the businesses want!
My major statement of the night was that whether we retained the current code or changed it there must be compliance. Enforcement of any code must be made and currently the Town does not enforce anything so changing the code will not accomplish anything.
John Musolf
Four councimembers were in attendance at the meeting: Hiremath, Hornat, Waters, and Solomon. Seeing how quickly Solomon left the room after noticing the other three, I wonder if that was a violation of the Open Meeting Law.
If this code passes, Oro Valley will look like a continuous, cheap "Sidewalk Sale."
There is no doubt that this code change will be finalized by Planning and Zoning and that the Council will approve [ 5-2 vote ]it.
There is doubt, however, that this code change will result in businesses increasing their sales, thus resulting in increased sales tax revenues for Oro Valley.
Interestingly, no hard facts have ever been provided regarding the impact.
---
AZMoose....If all stores are allowed 50% then it is fair. The owner chooses the size of their store so if they want more frontage then it is easily available to them.
Cares....There is no violation of the open meeting law if there is no discussion. And all council members left immediately after to introduction and did not participate in any way.
Zeeman.....Do you suppose that they would continue to go to the trouble/cost to put stuff out if it didn't sell. Give that some thought.
Post a Comment