[AZ-Observing] Re: In My Usual Diplomatic Style
- From: "Dan Rolston" <danwader@xxxxxxx>
- To: <az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:06:06 -0700
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.
Other related posts:
