[AZ-Observing] Re: In My Usual Diplomatic Style
- From: "Chuck" <astrogeoc@xxxxxxx>
- To: <az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:17:10 -0700
Well there is always the recall process as I'm quite sure once the residents
become aware of this "business venture sell out" there will be a petition
for just that purpose, should this become reality. Too many times we kiss
the politicians like kings and queens when they should be attacked for their
under the table dealings and scratching each other's backs.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Rolston" <danwader@xxxxxxx>
To: <az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 11:06 PM
Subject: [AZ-Observing] Re: In My Usual Diplomatic Style
> I can guarantee you that attacking business and profit motives when
sending
> messages to members of organizations that actively solicit, promote, and
> support businesses is the best way to get those messages ignored.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck" <astrogeoc@xxxxxxx>
> To: <evac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "AZ Observing" <az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 10:40 PM
> Subject: [AZ-Observing] In My Usual Diplomatic Style
>
>
> > Called take no prisoners! Here is what I have sent to the brillant
> thinking officials of Mesa.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Chuck
> > To: mayor.hawker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: councilmember.walters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
> councilmember.whalen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
councilmember.kavanaugh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ; councilmember.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
councilmember.griswold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ; councilmember_thom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; mike.hutchinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
> debra.dollar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; paul.wenbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 10:36 PM
> > Subject: RE: 80 foot signs doting Mesa
> >
> >
> > 80 foot signs doting Mesa?
> >
> > Mr. Major, City officials and council members,
> >
> > I find the proposal regarding signage along freeways most unusual
> considering this same idea was proposed within the state legislature and
> received no support this past summer. The same thing was proposed in
Tucson
> and again was unsupported. It would appear that those who stand to profit
> from sign sales are bound and determined to profit from lighting up the
> highways in one place or another in Arizona.
> >
> > I can remember when Lady Bird Johnson wanted to beautify our roads and
> highways by the removal of such garish and unsightly signs. Most have
been
> removed or fallen down and been hauled away over the years since this
> national action. Now suddenly Arizona is being deluged by attempts to
light
> up the heavens by a certain segment of the business world. To once again
> create eyesores along our freeways and roadways basically for the almighty
> dollar of those who would sponsor and build such signs. And the
communities
> who see dollar signs of course!
> >
> > First of all we don't need Las Vegas style lighting, streaming video and
> scrolling messages of 12 foot much less 80 foot signs along any freeways
or
> corridors in the entire valley including Mesa. I have heard it said as an
> excuse that there are some along the 101, 202 or 60. If so, then I must
be
> blind even with better than 20-20 vision as I certainly don't see them in
> the east valley such as those proposed.
> >
> > Second, these kind of lights are definitely not "freeway landmark
> monuments" and whomever came up with that definition should have their
head
> examined for sanity. Oh they may be landmarks alright, a landmark for
> disgraceful thinking and bowing to profits gained from such a myopic
> > viewpoint.
> >
> > Third, if businesses can not survive without such monstrous signage then
> they should fold up their tents and get out of the business they are in or
> move to Las Vegas. They hit us with enough advertising on all the media
as
> it is. And then when we, as consumers, arrive at their places of business
> we find either a bait and switch tactic or one of a kind and then high
> pressure sales techniques for what wasn't advertised.
> >
> > Fourth, it has been said that certain council members say "it's a
balance
> between business needs and the desire to preserve resident's views." I
> would ask has the learned members who say this ever taken a survey of the
> resident's to make such a statement? I rather doubt it! If so they
> wouldn't make such a statement! And what businesses are trying to sell
this
> bill of goods?
> >
> > Fifth, it would appear that this might be in violation of Maricopa
County
> lighting ordnances already in effect which may or may not affect the
various
> cities individually. Then again, if there are such ordnances, this ill
> advised proposal might just violate legalities. I would also question
how
> individual cities can put up signage along freeways such as the 60, 101
and
> 202 whose corridors are owned, maintained and beautified as well as
> constructed by the State.
> >
> > I also recall that people didn't want the football stadium near the
> intersection of the 101 and 202 thus letting an economic boom for Mesa go
> elsewhere. All due to traffic congestion on certain Sundays 9 to 10 times
a
> year in fact but also because of the unsightliness of such a structure and
> future surrounding infrastructure. Really far sighted thinking there!Now
we
> want to bring Vegas type lighting there?
> >
> > Six, it is a proven fact that flashing or glaring lights and streaming
> video or scrolling messages distract drivers along highways. I can just
see
> the "increased" safety value of these in heavy traffic on the freeways
> surrounding Mesa. There are enough distractions now!
> >
> > And last, a one time fee to Mesa of 3% of a sign's total valuation based
> upon a $ 150,000 sign is $ 4,500 and for a
> > $ 1 million sign $ 30,000 plus a $ 1,000 application fee per sign. It
> couldn't be that this is the motivating factor behind this sudden
departure
> from Mesa's "long held tradition discouraging large signs along the
> freeways" could it?
> >
> > I for one will be happy to sign a petition for recall of any elected
> person representing Mesa who votes for this type of thinking.
> >
> > Charles Crawford
> > President
> > Earth/Space Scientific Research Institute
> > --
> > See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and
please
> > send personal replies to the author, not the list.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
> send personal replies to the author, not the list.
>
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
Other related posts:
