Unsightly signs

Joseph Milan · Post by **Joseph Milan** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:32 pm

Ed FitzGerald wrote:Again, its Medic Drug, which is on Sloane Avenue, in Lakewood.

I think you've missed my point, Ed.
Why would you punish a Lakewood business for "unsightly signs" while letting the Westlake company get away with doing the same thing here in Lakewood?

Your idea sounds decent. But it should be uniform to fit any company doing this, whether they are from Lakewood or not.

Joe

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 6:41 pm

dl meckes wrote:Going back to the topic of the boycott...

...get newspaper and tv coverage of citizens who are upset about something (the ugly signs). This is a good visual for tv. It is helpful to send a press release to the tv stations clearly outlining the problem.

What do you think, Councilman Fitzgerald?

DL

Probably wondering why the gal with the name on the mastehead of the paper with the largest circulation in the city has written the story yet. :wink:

.

dl meckes · Post by **dl meckes** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:53 pm

I thought it was the Publisher of the OBserver and had spoken with some of the businesses involved who had the biggest rant about the problem.

Sounds like it's your story. :lol:

I simply said I'd carry an ugly sign.

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:37 pm

dl meckes wrote:I simply said I'd carry an ugly sign.

So be it.

...

john crino · Post by **john crino** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:55 pm

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
john crino wrote:I believe the city of Euclid was taken to the Supreme Court (Ohio?) because it had banned "for sale" signs supposedly to avert "white flight".

John

So it is with your posts that I take out my little drum and begin to pound.

My retort was more an fyi for someone who may want to pursue banning lawn signs for whatever reason.