"Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?"
(Five-Man Electrical Band)
Yesterday we looked at the Council’s decision to establish permit parking for Gowdy, Red Robin, and Golden Eagle. Today we’re looking at the only other discussion item on the agenda – campaign signs.
Find out what's happening in Lake Forestwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
CAMPAIGN SIGNS
Find out what's happening in Lake Forestwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
In January the Council considered changes to the campaign sign ordinances, but were unable to come to any decisions (when have we heard that before?) so now the issue is being brought back. Here is what the staff is proposing –
Removing the restriction of 1 sign per private property to as many signs as you want.
Removing the restriction of signs on the public right-of-way, but not on street “median islands”.
Allowing signs to be placed 45 days prior to and 10 days after an election.
Restricting people from having signs on their cars if the car remains stationary for 2 or more hours.
Let’s look a little more closely at some of these proposals.
Restricting cars with signs to not being able to remain stationary for more than two hours seems silly. If you go to a movie, or to dinner, must you remove your sign first? If you don’t have a garage, must the sign come off at night? And what about cars wraps - those signs that are actually wrapped around a car so that they can't come off. Will these cars be prohibited from the City?
Allowing residents to display as many signs as they want on their property seems to be poor policy in terms of maintaining an aesthetic for the community. I hate more government regulations, but perhaps “no more than 5 signs” is a better policy, or basing signs on the size of the property. Personally I'd be inclined to let it go and see what happens.
Restricting signs to 45 days before an election means that by the time signs go up, nearly half the people will have voted already, and the signs will have had no influence. Nearly half of our voters vote by mail, and most of them fill out their ballots as soon as they receive them. If they want to be sincere, 60 days is the better time period. Councilman Nick asked for this at the last meeting but the rest of the Council refused to go along with him. Their mistake - 60 days is a better time period if they want to be sincere.
VOIGTS' VOID
Here we are with the final meeting of the first quarter and not a single one of the dozen plus “Voigts' Void” issues has been discussed, much less resolved. Here's a reminder of some of these issues -
- PROTECTING LAKE FOREST FROM MUSICK JAIL EXPENSION
- INCREASING SPENDING IN LAKE FOREST
- ESTABLISHING LAKE FOREST COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
- ESTABLISHING TRAFFIC COMMITTEE
- CLEANING UP VILLAGE POND PARK
- ESTABLISHING DOG PARK
- ESTABLISHING REAL TERM LIMITS
- REPLACING BBK & OOPS
- IMPROVING WEBSITE TRANSPARENCY
- ESTABLISHING SUNSHINE ORDINANCE
- PCN REVISIONS
- ESTABLISHING COMMUNITY GARDEN
- IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF COUNCIL MEETINGS
Not a single one of the Voigts' Void items have come back to the Council, yet the current agenda is relatively short and could easily have included 2 or 3 of these items. Is the Council on vacation? Is this a reduced work week? Is this the type of government Dwight Robinson promised us? Is this the kind of business savvy he promised when he ran?
TRASH TALK REDUX
Tonight is the last time the Council members can change their mind about their recent vote to change from Waste Management to CR&R. If enough people express their dismay with removing the company who achieved the highest satisfaction scores on the City's survey and who offered a lower rate, perhaps the Council will hear their pleas. I believe Councilman Nick was right when he suggested that the Council delay the decision, but he was out-voted. The City would be better served by revising the flawed RFP and getting more bids for the contract.
