The Observation Deck

Bill Trentel wrote:I understand now, I didn't realize the constitution had a price list. $600 a year gives you the right to visually pollute the landscape with your message.

The fact of the matter is our commercial sign ordinance is part of the building code. The Building Dept. doesn't regulate legally licensed and parked vehicles on public streets.

There is nothing stopping any Lakewood business from utilizing this same technique of using their vehicle as a rolling billboard, gee you already know that. It's probably one of the oldest forms of advertising.

Bill

Wrong. This statute is 541.08, which is part of the Codified Ordinences under "Property Offenses" Other offenses are Arson, Criminal Mischief and Criminal Tresspass, which also aren't regulated by the Building Department.

Bill Trentel wrote:I understand now, I didn't realize the constitution had a price list. $600 a year gives you the right to visually pollute the landscape with your message.

The fact of the matter is our commercial sign ordinance is part of the building code. The Building Dept. doesn't regulate legally licensed and parked vehicles on public streets.

There is nothing stopping any Lakewood business from utilizing this same technique of using their vehicle as a rolling billboard, gee you already know that. It's probably one of the oldest forms of advertising.

Bill

Bill

The $600 allows me to park a spot for extended periods of time behind my business.
Inj a designated spot. It does not allow me to park for 72+ hours in front of a
competing business. Again just trying to work inside of a system that is as far to
Lakewood businesses as Cleveland businesses.

What I am saying is that maybe the city should look into this, and if at the end the
process, my wife's car is illegal or needs a permit so be it. What I am also saying is
that this approach penalizes Lakewood businesses.

.

Ivor Karabatkovic wrote:I'd hope $600 a year would allow you to drive to work and park your car at your place of work.

Maybe that's just me.

$600 doesn't/shouldn't provide you any "special" rights.

My point is this aesthetics violator should have the same rights as you or I. Unless you are advocating the creation of a prohibition of ALL vehicle advertising.

What seems to be being suggested is creating classes. Tax Lakewood payer, Lakewood business OK. Anyone else not OK.

Bill

Bill,

You've got to be able to realize the difference between parking in a designated parking lot at your place of business while you are working and parking a car in a marked, on street spot for the sole purpose of having a sign on the side and not moving it for days at a time. Can't you?

Really, that's a gigantic difference and pretty easy to designate.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Bill Trentel wrote:I understand now, I didn't realize the constitution had a price list. $600 a year gives you the right to visually pollute the landscape with your message.

The fact of the matter is our commercial sign ordinance is part of the building code. The Building Dept. doesn't regulate legally licensed and parked vehicles on public streets.

There is nothing stopping any Lakewood business from utilizing this same technique of using their vehicle as a rolling billboard, gee you already know that. It's probably one of the oldest forms of advertising.

Bill

Bill

The $600 allows me to park a spot for extended periods of time behind my business.
Inj a designated spot. It does not allow me to park for 72+ hours in front of a
competing business. Again just trying to work inside of a system that is as far to
Lakewood businesses as Cleveland businesses.

What I am saying is that maybe the city should look into this, and if at the end the
process, my wife's car is illegal or needs a permit so be it. What I am also saying is
that this approach penalizes Lakewood businesses.

.

We already have laws prohibiting for more than 24hrs. All you need to do is call the police and they begin a 24hr. check. I've used this process several times to rid my neighborhood of violators.

Bill

Bill Trentel wrote:
We already have laws prohibiting for more than 24hrs. All you need to do is call the police and they begin a 24hr. check. I've used this process several times to rid my neighborhood of violators.

Bill

Thanks for the note.

For the record, with the single exception of the Highland Ave. sign to be reinstalled. I
cannot think of a single other thing I have ever asked for from a public official, and
I would certainly never asked to be treated any differently.

However to punish Lakewood businesses for doing business legally, just seems
counter productive.

Bill, why are you so for this practice again?


.

When you have a vehicle parked on City streets, the law requires current tags. If not, ticket and maybe tow the vehicle.

When you have a vehicle with a sign on it and the sign conveys some thought or reference (either directly or indirectly) to the attached vehicle, then the vehicle and sign become the entire advertisement (not just the sign). If the vehicle and sign are considered an advertisement, then it should be regulated accordingly (as Bob M pointed out).

This is different than a typical delivery truck or a car with a company logo on it. The primary purpose of the rusted out vehicle with a sign that draws attention to the condition of the vehicle is advertisement, not the normal or typical use of a vehicle.

IMHO

Just for the sake of argument, would it be any different if it was a Ferrari with that sign on? I doubt anyone with a Ferrari would be parking it on Lakewood City streets for longer than 24 hours or put a crappy sign on it.

Ok, color me confused but does this mean I need to get a special permit for my van when I have those magnet things on it? (or when I get around to getting more because someone stole them off my van. and seriously who would steal a rescue's logo magnet thing? come on people...)

Missy Limkemann wrote:Ok, color me confused but does this mean I need to get a special permit for my van when I have those magnet things on it? (or when I get around to getting more because someone stole them off my van. and seriously who would steal a rescue's logo magnet thing? come on people...)

Missy

No

But if you do not remove them they will discolor you car's finish, and if you remove
them and do not lay them flat or put them on dirty surfaces they blow off. The magnet
material is sought after by the young ones as well for their stickers.

.

Thank you.

I have a little rescue ribbon sticker on the back of my van and now that I think about it, the color is all goofy there. But I was shocked when they were stolen. Some day I will get new ones....

But I do think those "jalopies" parked thru out the city just make our city look trashy. That is just my personal opinion and how I personally feel.

Charlie Page wrote:When you have a vehicle parked on City streets, the law requires current tags. If not, ticket and maybe tow the vehicle.

When you have a vehicle with a sign on it and the sign conveys some thought or reference (either directly or indirectly) to the attached vehicle, then the vehicle and sign become the entire advertisement (not just the sign). If the vehicle and sign are considered an advertisement, then it should be regulated accordingly (as Bob M pointed out).

This is different than a typical delivery truck or a car with a company logo on it. The primary purpose of the rusted out vehicle with a sign that draws attention to the condition of the vehicle is advertisement, not the normal or typical use of a vehicle.

IMHO

Just for the sake of argument, would it be any different if it was a Ferrari with that sign on? I doubt anyone with a Ferrari would be parking it on Lakewood City streets for longer than 24 hours or put a crappy sign on it.

First I agree they are ugly, effective advertising is debatable but they did get your attention...

It a basic free speech issue and unless you choose to regulate it fairly and evenly it is unconstitutional. The logo and other information on the side of a Fedex truck or the antique car in front of Around the Corner IS being used for exactly the same reason. IT'S ADVERTISING it's there to sell a product not because they had a big white truck with nothing better to do with. The vehicle itself does help to convey the advertisers message.

What is implied by the original poster and in his follow-up is that we should have different standards for non-resident (non-taxpayer) and residents and Lakewood Businesses.

I would suggest that a better approach would be to contact the advertising and let them know how distasteful you think his marketing program is. This would be far more effective than creating new laws or bending existing ones to address one distasteful business.

Bill

Actually, upon further review, it's even more illegal.....

351.16 DISPLAYING VEHICLES FOR SALE; ADVERTISING; REPAIRING OR WASHING VEHICLE.

(a) No person shall stand or park a vehicle on any street or in any public right of way in the City for the principal purpose of displaying such vehicle for sale; or for washing, greasing, or repairing such vehicle; or for the primary purpose of displaying advertising.

(b) This section shall not apply to the placing of signage on a personal vehicle advertising that vehicle for sale, so long as the signage is placed inside the vehicle and does not significantly obstruct the view of the driver so as to interfere with the safe operation of such vehicle and so long as such vehicle is not parked or stood upon a public street or public right of way for the primary purpose of advertising that vehicle for sale. This section shall not apply to repairs of a vehicle necessitated by an emergency.

(Ord. 55-01. Passed 12-3-01.)

Bottom line, it ain't nice.

EDIT: For the record, if any else is up for a little light evening reading:

http://www.conwaygreene.com/lakewood.htm

Bill Trentel wrote:First I agree they are ugly, effective advertising is debatable but they did get your attention...

It a basic free speech issue and unless you choose to regulate it fairly and evenly it is unconstitutional.

Bill

Bill

I agree with your better solution.

That said I am not sure it is a free speech issue.


.

Bill---that was the essence of my recommendation--- register your distaste and and withholding of patronage and spreading the word of dissatisfaction.
Stan

Stan Austin wrote:spreading the word of dissatisfaction.
Stan

Thought that is what I was doing.

oh well.


.