Unsightly signs

[Thomas J. George]

Observers,

The thread "People Selling their Homes" had several comments regarding unsightly signs. I thought I'd start a new thread to make a couple of points on this subject.

Some of you may remember a time, not so long ago, when the City of Lakewood prohibited ANY political yard signs.

In the mid to early 90s, this City ordinance and other cities with the same type of sign restrictions came under fire as a free speech issue and the Lakewood law, and others like it, was deemed unconstitutional.

A new city ordinance was approved in 1996 by Council that meets legal muster and allows for the current guidelines e.g. 30 days before the election and size restrictions.

Some of you may remember that Lakewood at one time, had a ban on newspaper boxes. The Plain Dealer challenged that law. After years of litigation, the law was struck down by the courts and the Plain Dealer prevailed. Legal costs to the city to defend the law exceeded $200,000.

I would point out that from time to time, well meaning Council members present laws to address various problems.

Sometimes an honest legal assessment of a proposed law is taken as disapproval. That is usually not the case. But unless a law is well thought out and drafted, we run the risk of spending large sums of tax dollars defending the City's actions.

For the record, I find many of the signs unsightly as well.

TJG

[Joseph Milan]

At the very least, the city should promptly dispose of political signs on election day left unattended at polling locations. They should be removed as soon as they are placed.
If the city won't do it, someone representing the candidate's opponent should be able to.
Joe Milan

[Mark Schroeder]

Mr. Mayor--

Thanks for both splitting this off as separate thread and for putting the difficulty of restricting the signs in context: that of First Amendment rights.

Along the line of my original post, has their been any civic discussion about the limiting or banning of realty signs?

[Stan Austin]

Mark-- Even though you addressed your question to the Mayor I think his memory and mine are about equal.

To my recollection any civic debate about signs has centered primarily on political signs. There are some cities which have debated realty signs and have gone through the same expensive court testing in litigation brought by the realty industry that the Mayor has pointed out.

The primary reason for limiting realty for sale signs in the past was to limit the panic effects of block busting or quick racial turnover in the make up of the home ownership. It was felt that the sudden appearance of numerous for sale signs added to a panic effect.

However, in our part of the country, I think that the economy mitigates against any quick turnover of property for any reason. And I would think that as a previous poster indicated an attractive sign is as much a part of wise marketing as a mowed lawn and both are ultimately up to the property owner if he wants to realize top dollar for his sale or rental property.

Stan Austin

[Mark Schroeder]

Thanks Stan--

And your comments fit the situation that I referred to in Oak Park in the 80's. There was a lot of fear about "white flight" in that situation.

I'm glad we had the pleasure of meeting in person last week!

Mark

[john crino]

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".

[Jennifer Desilets]

Mr. Mayor,

Thank you for starting a new thread. When I brought up this topic, my main complaint was regarding the "For Rent" signs on Clifton Blvd. There seems to be one in front of every rental property and they are never removed - even if the property has been rented! Since there are so many signs, the rental properties are now adding things like balloons, flags and additional signs just to distinguish themselves from each other. Frankly, Clifton Blvd is starting to look like the Bedford Auto Mile - what's next? Huge inflatable gorillas?!

I am an avid walker and my route is frequently up and down Clifton, especially as sunset comes earlier, and I see these signs day after day. Recently I have been watching several properties that have been advertised "Open House Today" for more than 30 days in a row - I highly doubt that anyone from the management office would have been there to greet me had I knocked on the door for the advertised "Open House" at 8PM last night, when I walked by.

I am a property owner, and believe that property owners have a right to do what they wish with their property, but there are limits. For example, there are ordinances about when and how you can put out your trash, how your address number is displayed, and keeping your grass cut. If everyone was a good neighbor, then these would not be needed, but at some point in time, legislation was found to be necessary.

Could we draft an appeal to the property owners to "clean up" their tree lawns, and if they don't respond, then consider ordinances. Mr. Mayor, your point about the cost of litigation is well taken, and I have no doubt that there are limits to what can be done. Perhaps a "ban" is not needed, but maybe the city can set specifications regarding the type, size, placement of signs, as they already do for address numbers!

Political signs, as messy as they may be, are an American tradition, and a good reminder to us that that our participation in government is everybodys responsibility - I think they should stay (seasonally) and the "Safe Kids" signs are important too.

A final point, my comments are in NO way related to the racial make-up of the neighborhood. Lakewood's diversity is one of its strengths.

[Ed FitzGerald]

I noticed this weekend that the merchants using the obnoxious sign tactics have now expanded onto Clifton Boulevard. There was a guy sleeping at the corner of Clifton and West Clifton, while holding a sign on a pole for the Medic drugstore.

I have an open question: if the City risks legal action by prohibiting such signs, is there anything to stop a citizen boycott of establishments using this unsightly marketing tactic? Could public pressure yield results in this case?

I am interested in Observers' views on the advantages and disadvantages of this approach.

[Joseph Milan]

I have an open question: if the City risks legal action by prohibiting such signs, is there anything to stop a citizen boycott of establishments using this unsightly marketing tactic? Could public pressure yield results in this case?

Councilman,

your idea might be good for a local store if the boycott was well organized. I have, however, seen people carrying signs for furniture closings in Westlake. I don't think a Lakewood boycott of a Westlake store will have much effect.

Joe

[Ed FitzGerald]

Again, its Medic Drug, which is on Sloane Avenue, in Lakewood.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Again, its Medic Drug, which is on Sloane Avenue, in Lakewood.

Well if that's the case we can forget them like they forgot about us.

At the same time we should remember to support The Bin, Clif Tower's Gas Station, and other businesses in the area.

Wouldn't that be a great place for the Emerald Canyon® Drug Co-Op and Stress Relief Clinic?


.

[Mark Schroeder]

Would the "stress relief" include Internet pole dancing?

[Jim O'Bryan]

Would the "stress relief" include Internet pole dancing?

I was actually thinking more of the homeopathic stress relief clinics of the 80s in California. when I threw the idea out. But was serious about the Emerald Canyon® Drug Co-Op taking the space.

The area is not big enough but I remember a concept that was looking for space in Lakewood two years ago. Dr. WALSTIB's RETIREMENT CENTERS. But they really needed acres and the land they wanted was Clifton Beach or along the lake. I think they even approached St. Augustine's at the time, but no one wanted to help the city with their high taxes but selling to a big company that would have employed hundreds. Oh well.

The Stress Relief Companies in California would pop up in film drop off booths, old drive though restaurants, nearly anywhere. Right when California was relived most from stress the government stepped in and shut them down. Odd how that works.

Now a days we see stress relief as sitting at the park in a nice little coffee shop. A perfect third place to go.


.

[Jim O'Bryan]

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.

The problem is not the for sale signs, and it is not white flight. My attitude is if they don't get, "see ya wouldn't want to be ya."

Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom

The region was just declared the most livable in the nation, and Lakewood as the best suburb in the region by three top papers that did not get bought off ala WMMS to get the kudos. If they are running from that, well I do not know what else we can offer. Do we offer money? I have always found that paying fools is like throwing money away.

If the 324 people on this board are serious about this city, their love for this city and their dreams for this city that let's get this thing started. We need meetings on various levels that allow the citizens to take some of this on themselves. People like you and Rita Ryland have smelled the coffee and moved here from the East Coast, carving out homesteads and businesses in the nicest city in this most livable region.

We must spread the word, and begin a project to draft good neighbors. I hear there are many in Florida, New Orleans, California, New York, and up and down the east and west coast that are looking for a place to retire, move, begin living again at a slower pace. We must exploit their thoughts and our live-ability and water.

We must ramp up the home-base businesses, and give them a true tool they can use to grow.

The great thing is none of this costs BIG money, and a lot of it though work can be fun work. It all builds the brand, and allows neighbors to meet, work together and help thic city get better.

The problem is not the for sale signs or for rent signs, it is a populace that is getting lazy, scared and looks for easy ways out.

But that's just my opinion.


.

[dl meckes]

Going back to the topic of the boycott...

There are plenty of "Old School" boycott tactics which may be effective, like petitions and letters, including carrying ugly signs to protest ugly signs, but the most effective way of doing things is to 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.

It would be interesting if City Hall and Council lead the charge. Since we do not want to infringe upon the free speech rights of people or businesses, we may only ask that businesses behave like good neighbors by complying with the wishes of the leaders and the people of Lakewood.

What do you think, Councilman Fitzgerald?