By Blackrulon
I noticed something interesting today. The city made certain that the sign board advertising of a local coffee shop was not placed on city property:
• Another Boss Godfrey Cheap Shot: Ogden City Cites Kaffe Mercantile For a "Sign Violation"I drove past the new Ogden location for Recreation Outlet and noticed a sign in the street telling where to find additional store parking:
It does really seem that anything labeled hi-tech or outdoor recreation is exempt from the standard enforcement of city rules and regulations.
15 comments:
Sounds just like the weed patrol busting grandma's parkstrip yet multiple city props can look like a jungle....
It may have something to do with the sporting goods store being located on a commercial street and the coffee shop being located in a residential zone [except for that building]. Signage rules/regs may differ because of the different locations.
I don't know. Just speculating.
Jahsohs/Indigo Sage can park where they want, even pulling their cars up the curb onto newly-landscaped property that belongs to Utah Power, landscaped areas with multiple No Parking signs.
Friends of the current administration DO get special treatment.
If a commoner did that for a week, along with blocking traffic easements, etc, they would be fined/bitch-slapped in a week.
Now that the nice landscaped strip is all torn up and shot to hell, basically looking like a Bruce "stinky" Edwards property, do you think Indigo Sage or !Jahsohs! will pay to fix it, or simply leave for someone else to re-do?
I know that pointing out the discrepancy to the administration does nothing, talking to the Indigo jerk-wads does nothing, talking to Jasohs! gets you shouted at.
FOM = WIN
Ooops. The sign is actually in the street [not on the sidewalk in front of the store near the curb]. Zoning doesn't matter then. I don't think it's permissible anywhere to place a sign actually in the street. Comment above withdrawn.
Did anyone call it in? As I recall someone complained to City Hall about the coffee shoppe sign, and then the city acted. Did anyone call this one in to complain?
Did somebody call to complain? Are you kidding? This is what we get looted by gummint for - to cite somebody for putting out a small sign to tell people where to park or to find a small store?
Holy cow. I am alone.
Danny:
The question is, I think, whether there are two sets of rules in the city, one for FOMs and one for the rest of us. But if no one called to complain about this sign, the situation is not comparable to the Cafe Merc incident. That's all.
Not to mention that merchants sandwich board signs actually in a street would seem to constitute a traffic hazard, however small a one.
[Off topic]
Just wandered over to see if anything was happening on the SE blog site. The first three blog threads on the list are all press releases from Sen. Hatch's PR flacks. The first three.
Why don't they just rename the SE Blog site "Orin Hatch's PR Blog, [with occasional other postings]" and be done with it.
Interesting development, Curm. Andy Howell responds to your critique in his morning column:
Behind the Headlines - To Blog or Not to Blog
Washington Blvd. is a state road, not a city street..call UDOT on it.thye dont like anyone messing with a dirt clod of thiers..interesting that its in the right turn lane, so someone turning right has to dodge it...sooo..if there is a car in the adjacent lane, I could see a potential hazard.
Irrespective of which public agency is reponsible for Washington boulevard, its likely that this sign volates Ogden's broadly worded sign ordinance:
18-4-1: SIGNPOSTING PROHIBITED; PUBLIC PROPERTY:
It is unlawful for any person to fasten, attach, paint or place any sign, handbill, poster, advertisement or notice of any kind or sort, whether political or otherwise, or to cause the same to be done in or upon the curbstone, lamppost, telephone pole, electric light or power pole, hydrant, bridge, or tree or in or upon any portion of any sidewalk, park strip or street. It shall be unlawful to paste, place, paint or attach any "sign" defined in this title on any building, street or property of the city.
(1979 Code § 15.12.080; amd. Ord. 2007-62, 8-21-2007)
18-4-2: ERECTION OVER PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY:
It is unlawful to erect and/or maintain any sign over any street or alley, except as herein expressly provided.
(1979 Code § 15.12.200)
Rudi:
Saw Mr. Howell's column this morning. [I read his and Greiling's bi-weekly columns every Saturday. Look forward to them.]
I posted a reply to Mr. Howell's column on the SE site. I generally don't like cross posting precisely the same items here and on the SE site, but I'll make an exception this morning. Below is the comment I put up over at the SE this morning:
In Re: turning the SE blogsite into an extension of Orin Hatch's PR staff: Just back from checking the SE blogsite after reading your piece this morning. Seven entries came up on the first page. Three were Hatch PR flack releases and one was from Bishop's people. Four of the seven then were straight press releases from congressmen. Four of seven. [For the statistically challenged, that's more than half.]
What that did, of course, was force four legitimate blog entries off the main page, so to find them to see if any continuing discussion was going on, readers have to page down below the opening page. If your ask your techies, Mr. Howell, I think they will tell you that few people do that, that if blogs do not come up on the main page, few will go deeper into the site looking for them . That's one way your "we post anything a congressman has his PR people send us automatically as a blog" adversely affects the SE's real bloggers. And your readers.
Set up a separate Congressman's Flacks Page, if you like, and put a click-through button on the SE main page so readers can find Hatch and Bishop tooting their own horns, if you like. But they don't belong on the SE's blog page.
Thanks, Curn!
Here's the link to the same article on the SE Live! site:
Background info personal but key to understanding charges
(I couldn't find it when I posted my comment earlier this morning.)
Ernie, my point is that UDOT might actually say or do something about it.
Earnie
You posted:
"18-4-2: ERECTION OVER PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY:"
Are you sure this title isn't from the morals and sex codes?
I've heard of some pretty kinky stuff going on here in stiff necked Utah, but getting it up over a public right of way is just too weird!
The above quoted law is the main reason there are no streets in Utah named Boner Road which to me is a real travesty.
Post a Comment