Hearing on Three Non-Illuminated Projecting Signs
Wednesday 2/2/2011 a public hearing will be held to hear an appeal on a request for signs at 1000 Washington Ave. I’ve been to enough of these to know the signs are probably what the most recent downtown plans seeks. The problem is the city’s sign code doesn’t permit the type of sign that is desired in the downtown plan so the city staff has no option but to reject the request and schedule a routine appeal.
Here is a novel idea, why not change the code so that desirable signs are approved by staff upon application?
– Steve Patterson
I couldn't agree more, Steve. It is very tedious to go through the process of getting a sign hung in the city. I imagine that the majority of businesses just give up, and that's why so many small businesses have cheap, hard-to-read or even temporary signs. The process MUST be streamlined. The convoluted, bureaucratic process is frustrating, redundant and confusing.
Never having done a sign in STL, where do the problems lie? The zoning ordinance? City staff? Aldermanic intervention/opposition? I agree, it should be a simple, fair, transparent process, but there also do need to be limits. Like much in design, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and subject to changing tastes. Sign technology is constantly evolving, and one person's cool logo with a built-in video display is someone else's over-the-top eyesore. And while projecting signs can add a certain urban ambience, too many and/or too big can start to obscure the underlying architecture.
Sign technology does change as does tastes, yet our sign code doesn't change.
did Lumiere have to go through all of this trouble to put up their jumbotron along the elevated lanes?
“…why not change the code so that desirable signs are approved by staff upon application?” Unfortunately, that would require the application of common sense, something which I have noticed is greatly lacking in the management class at City Hall. R200 and the aldermanic chambers included, of course.
Why are they putting up non-lighted signs, I wonder? Many of the hanging signs along Wash Ave are very attractive IMO and increase the value of the streetscape. I really like the views along the Ave at night. I guess Prime 1000 isn't adding to the unique and tasteful mix (IMO)?
I work for a sign company and reading these zoning rules is still a headache. But I went through the code and here's what I see: Downtown is zoned I (Central Business District). The type of sign they want is a “projecting sign” which look nice, are usually kind of small and not illuminated, and are visible to people walking down the sidewalk. “Projecting signs” are not permitted in zone I, code 26.68.120, hence the picture above. Steve is totally right, this could be very easily changed to prevent this added step for the owner. I can't even speculate on why this sign type isn't already allowed, as its kind of a classic and unobtrusive style. The code also sets the maximum extension of these at 5 feet from the building, so they can't obscure the facade of adjacent buildings.
Scott Ogilvie – Independent Candidate for Alderman, Ward 24
This is parallel to a blog post I put up this week about similar problems faced by Stellina Pasta:
http://www.stltoday.com/entert…
I guess the issue is slightly different in that in the downtown case, the type of sign isn't allowed in the first place without a hearing (despite there being quite a few of them already, presumably after their own hearings), and in Stellina's case the sign is allowed, but apparently is not located on the building within the allowable height – from what I read in the article. I will tell you that frustration with zoning / engineering / permit depts. is by no means limited to St. Louis. I do see an issue with the amount of time it takes to get to the hearing – maybe 60 days? On the flip side, these rules develop over time to balance commercial interests with the aesthetic interest of the neighborhood and with general safety and engineering standards. No one wants a flashing pink neon sign outside their window, cantilevered 20 feet over the sidewalk. Maybe this kind of publicity will lead to a re-evaluation of the process.
Scott Ogilvie – Independent Candidate for Alderman, Ward 24
None of the aldermen want to change the process because this way people have to come to them for a letter of approval.
I agree. The problem with these types of issues is that it is a long-drawn out process involving many city agencies; many single people have to find out who they need to talk to next, and sometimes, the first person in line needs to talk to the third, and then the fourth to find out who is the sixth… you get the idea. In the interest of job security, everyone has to take a gander to see if they approve. In reality, isn't it much more simpler to allow the prospected sign's owner to go file an application with the building division, a building division inspector meets with the prospected sign's owner on site to observe the situation, and then the inspector makes their recommendation to their supervisor?
I know that it should work like this: I would like to install a sign, whether overhung or not, onto my building which technically would reside over the public R-O-W. I go down to 1200 Market and fill out a simple form applying for me to do so. Within an hour, I'm meeting with a building inspector who evaluates my situation. The inspector makes the call after the meeting on site and gives his/her OK to the sign. By the time I make it back to 1200 Market, my permit is ready. The rest is up to my contractor.
The process to allow for this to happen would take…
How long do YOU guess?
As long as it takes to get medicinal cannabis legal in the great state of MO, perhaps?
As 10th ward alderman I would work on changing this. Signs should be easy. We should be profusely thanking anyone who wants to do business in the city.
How do you feel about furloughs? I've been waiting well over a year for a raise/promotion and during that time the aldermen gave themselves raises and forced most city employees to take furloughs while they didn't. What about installing decorations (entry features, decorative lights, landscaped medians, etc.) that we cannot afford to maintain? When there are funds available, what do you think on doing with said funds: a) my buddy has a business and, even though his sidewalk and driveway are fine, he'll get new or b) this area doesn't even have a sidewalk and I don't know the people, I'll give them a sidewalk instead of helping out my buddy.
Furloughs and pay freezes beat the alternative – just be glad that you're not looking for work in this economy. If your job and/or who you work for are really that bad, don't let the door hit you on the way out . . .
My salary is reimbursed by the feds due to the projects I work on. Police and fire, by virtue of special interests, were exempted from taking furloughs. Why didn't the aldermen take furloughs? They gave themselves raises…
I work for the city, I couldn't imagine anywhere else that is, as a whole, this inefficient.
I'm most certainly wanted; I'm essentially the “go-to” person when fill-in/night/weekend work surfaces. We get audited by the feds from time to time and they are always very pleased with my work. My bosses are great as are most city employees; it's the politics that is sinking this city. I'm tired of the wasteful spending. In this fiscal climate, if we cannot afford to install it, let alone maintain it, please choose the “do-nothing” option.
Hey, I don't doubt that you're doing a good job, and probably a great job. I also don't doubt that the police and fire unions are doing a good job of protecting their members' pay and benefits. And, I'm guessing that you're not covered by a union contract. That said, your attitude is typical of many in the government sector, that their jobs should be or are somehow isolated from the economic realities of the recession. With the private sector suffering, tax revenues ARE down, significantly. There are only a few ways to deal with reduced revenue, in both the public and the private sectors. Pay freezes, pay reductions and/or furloughs allow staffing levels to be maintained. Layoffs allow remaining staff to get promised increases in pay and benefits, but reduces the number of employees, all of whom are or were “essential” at some point in time.
Pick your poison – see the St. Clair County Sheriff's Dept., East St. Louis, Camden, NJ or Newark, NJ for one “answer”. As someone who's still experiencing that reality (laid off 2 years ago and enjoying a 60% pay reduction while being currently significantly under “employed”), I have little sympathy for anyone who's griping about “waiting well over a year for a raise/promotion”. Life ain't fair, and it seems like you're still doing pretty well, on my nickel, especially compared to the 10% of the population that has no job and the 15% that are scraping by in part-time and/or low-paying jobs outside their areas of expertise/chosen careers (and not counted in the unemployment stats)! And no, just because your job is funded by the feds doesn't make it special – tax dollars are fungible (look it up) – the only difference is that they're able to run up the national debt to keep you in your position!
So I guess we agree that there are inefficiencies in city government. But what I'm missing is how “My bosses are great as are most city employees” is connected to “I'm tired of wasteful spending”. The 2010 city budget was $967 million, the 2011 budget is $937 million. That's a 3% reduction before anyone gets any raises. Less than $8 million is allocated to running the Board of Aldermen, including their discretionary ward funds, or less than 1% of the total budget. Cut that by 20% and all you do is cover the $2.4 million increase in police pension costs. There are no easy answers!
We citizens are now paying for trash collection – this new fee is just a tax increase with a different name, mostly to keep city employee pay and benefits intact. And when it comes to pay, the budget is pretty clear: “Employee Pay and Benefits – As in the previous fiscal year, there will be no increase in City employee salaries. However, as discussed previously with both Police and Fire departments, the cost of employee pensions will continue to rise in FY2011. Across all funds, the costs for non-uniformed pensions is projected to increase $4.8M in FY2011. The general fund share of this increase, excluding civilian employees of the Police Department, amounts to $2.4M. Pay costs were also expected to rise in FY2011 with the expiration of employee furloughs employed as a cost saving measure in the previous fiscal year, offset in part by a small reduction in costs of the City employee health plan. To offset these increases, the FY2011 budget assumes a 3.5% salary savings item in most department budgets. This reduction in budgeted salaries was the amount required to keep overall compensation costs at FY2010 levels. Details of how these savings are to be implemented and achieved will be the subject of pay negotiations.”
I'll start with union contracts. Unions are special interests and should be abolished. Just because someone is protected under a union doesn't give them any more rights than someone not under a union. Hence why I'm not too happy about how the police and fire aren't taking furloughs. And I'll reiterate regarding the aldermen: don't make me take furloughs when you don't [and give yourselves raises]–that's a representation failure in my book. Equal. Treatment. Under. The. Laws. I'm a citizen and taxpayer, too. Federal law mandates that contractors pay prevailing wage. By default, I'm putting the most time into these projects so where's my prevailing wage? Oh, that's right: the government is being hypocritical and catering to the unions again.
Please don't bring the City's operating budget into this because I'll just say, “Holy ****! $937 Million and they can't throw me a few extra bones that I've been told that I deserve?” Considering that my salary is reimbursed and the City is the one who ultimately pays me, if I was able to spell out exactly how much the City gets for me and my total compensation, you'd understand. I would go into detail about how “select” people have still received raises and how a colleague is going to retire and probably get hired back as a consultant but I'd reveal too much information. I've probably already revealed too much information…
Let's talk about fungability and how it applies to the City. Let's say that the federal government is going to “award” one million dollars to fund some road and pedestrian improvements in a ward in the City. Instead of doing the proper thing and installing, for the first time in places, sidewalks and ADA ramps around a ten square block area, the alderman thinks that it's prudent to completely redo a few blocks along the main drag including decorative items which increase operating and maintenance costs and, as a coincidence, his friend lives along the main drag. [See: stimulus streetscape projects that are either finished with or currently under construction at the time I type this; pick one, there's a few to choose from]. These aldermen [and a few people primarily in the Mayor's office] don't think ahead and they can't manage money. They also don't think that while they're spending federal money, maybe they ought to better cater to the people from where the money is coming from: China… oh, scratch that, every US taxpayer. Maybe the old man in Florida or the young couple in Idaho don't want to fund pretty lights in St. Louis. We have ADA mandates, let's concentrate on that while making our city more walkable. There are maintenance issues, let's concentrate on those before making everything beautiful. You want to go look at flowers? Go to a park, don't build a landscaped median in the middle of the road that limits emergency vehicle travel and I ignore anyway.
The other two cities that I've lived in charge for trash pickup; the free pickup was a perk. Just recently, we received the annual briefing on our pension fund. Guess what? When one follows a linear relationship on the graph provided, the current balance is right where it should be; not as high as before the stock market fell but it's normal again.
“My bosses are great as are most city employees” is connected to “I'm tired of wasteful spending” because even though my bosses are great, they're actions are severely limited by the Board of Aldermen [and the Mayor's office]. I thought that was covered by, “it's the politics that is sinking this city…” Even though that we know well in advance that a certain installation is not wise as it will increase future costs, we have no choice but to install it because, “that's what the aldermen want.” I thought government was supposed to be full of checks and balances?
I didn't really accomplish much here but at least I got to type some more words.
Not nice, Jim. He has a legitimate point on the aldermanic raise issue. And if he likes his job, why should he leave, exposing himself to this era's job market? As two people who have had limited work over the last few years, we should be happy for this man, having a job as he does, rather than be bitter about our own situation, and projecting that bitterness onto everyone else. It's a bit like people who gripe about the high wages of unionized workers, rather than looking to the past 35-40 years of wage stagnation as the real problem. I'm glad those union guys have that pay, because it illustrates how bad the wage and salary structure in our country is these days. What would you prefer, a race to the bottom, where Chinese wage rates live? A tenth, maybe a quarter the pay scale we make now? With the cost of American living, that is an untenable situation. The only way most Americans could keep up with their parents over that time period was to go into hock up to their ears, goaded on by peer pressure and Marketing/PR(opaganda). This is where outsized personal debt has gotten us. As for National debt, raising, not lowering the top tax rates on personal and corporate taxes would have solved much of that, in addition to gutting much of the unneeded War Dept. budget. As middle class denizens, we must stop stabbing each other in the back.
The Aldermen make up a tiny fraction of both the city's workforce and its budget. Whether they're underpaid, or not, and/or deserve a raise, is debatable, but even giving each one of them a 20% raise, or even cutting their pay by 20%, will have a miniscule impact on the overall budget and the monies available to pay every other employee. Should they have foregone them, if only for symbolic reasons? Probably. But if it's like how things are in most states, the salary paid any elected official is a) set by law, and b) any increase cannot be received until they've been elected or reelected. These increases were likely passed before the current budget issues, but I do agree, they make a convenient and visible target.
I do not begrudge ToP's ability to have a decent job, but I do question his apparent disconnect from reality when it comes to expecting a raise in this economy, no matter how “good” one thinks they may be. I'd trade no raise, furloughs and pay cuts for $315 a week in unemployment benefits any day! Am I advocating a “race to the bottom”? Absolutely not. What I am questioning is the assumption by many public employees that they're somehow immune from economic realities. To expect, as many public employees and their unions do, to continue to see annual pay raises and fully-funded health care and pensions when revenues are falling points to only one conclusion, higher taxes! Those of us in the private sector are having a hard enough time treading water with all of our other bills!
Government employees do not produce anything, they provide services to constituents. There is a finite pool of tax dollars, and the trash fee will add another $10.8 million, just by itself. Remember, too, that 2/3 of our budget is dedicated to “public safety” and “judicial offices”, things few of us have any direct contact with, except for showing up for jury duty. Yeah, we need them because we have a major crime problem, but most of us paying aren't the ones doing the crimes.
Finally, I do agree that things need to change at the federal level, especialy funding for the military-industrial complex. I also agree with many of ToP's latest points – unions, inequal treatment, lack of coordination, “wasting” money on cosmetic upgrades and too much unilateral power resting with individual aldermen. That still doesn't change my opinions about the need for all city employees to face the economic realities most of us in the private sector have faced for the past 2+ years.
http://stlouis.missouri.org/go…