[AZ-Observing] Fw: 80 foot signs doting Mesa
- From: "Chuck" <astrogeoc@xxxxxxx>
- To: <evac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:27:09 -0700
Response from Councilmember Griswold. Make what you will of it?
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: <Councilmember.Griswold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Chuck" <astrogeoc@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:55 AM
Subject: RE: 80 foot signs doting Mesa
Dear Chuck,
Thank you for not believing everything that you read in the newspaper and
for contacting us with your concerns. First, a few clarification of facts.
Mesa is the largest city in the U.S. with no local property tax (the
property tax that you pay goes to Maricopa County and the local school
system). Over 1/3 of our general budget is derived from a local sales
tax. Over 50% of our general budget is spent on Police and Fire. Everytime
a nearby city opens another mall or car dealership, Mesa loses revenue and
therefore must cut services on a growing city-hopefully not Police or Fire
expenses. To offer parity to our major sales tax revenue generators (the
major malls and car dealerships) we need to match what the other cities are
doing or lose these businesses. Under our new sign ordinance, only
approximately 17 freeway signs would be allowed in a city that encompasses
over 150 square miles (only 2 locations possible on the 202 freeway). Any
large freeway sign would require a vote of the city council with a great
deal of discussion and public input. With these sign costing between
$250,000 and $900,000, I do not think there will be a rush for even these
17 or so possible locations- "Fiesta Mall sign", "Superstition Mall sign"
etc.. Many of these locations are 20 feet below the freeway and out current
ordinance only allows 12 foot high signs. Now the good news, we are
working on new "Desert Uplands Building Standards" for the Northeast part
of our city which will include some "dark skies" and reduced lighting
standards. Thank you for caring about Mesa and its appearance.
Serving Mesa,
Rex
Griswold
"Chuck"
<astrogeoc@xxxxxx To:
<mayor.hawker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
t> cc:
<councilmember.walters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<councilmember.whalen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
01/12/2004 10:36
<councilmember.kavanaugh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
PM
<councilmember.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<councilmember.griswold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<councilmember_thom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<mike.hutchinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<debra.dollar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<paul.wenbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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.
Other related posts:
