The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

14 September 2006

Non-hazardous waste

Like toadstools after a rainstorm, the signs sprout before an election: plastic and wire, sometimes seemingly placed at random, sometimes positioned for maximum irritation value.

No, they're not going to be banned, but a change to the Municipal Code was taken up this week at Council and will be heard by the Planning Commission today.

From the Council agenda packet:

Currently, signs that are located in violation of the code (in the street right-of-way or sight triangle, unanchored signs, or signs that are damaged to a point that they are considered a safety hazard) may be impounded by the City. The signs are stored by the City for 30 days, in order for the sign owners to pay a designated fee and reclaim the signs.

The proposed ordinance will relieve the City of the obligation to store the signs, and eliminate the ability of the sign owners to reclaim the signs. All signs impounded under the terms of the ordinance will be disposed of by the City.

Which is less earth-shattering than it may seem:

There is no expected revenue impact since citizens rarely paid [the] fee and picked up their signs.

Now that's a shock.

Posted at 9:14 AM to City Scene


Now if they would amend that so citizens could impound them, that would be even better

Posted by: Dwayne "the canoe guy" at 10:02 AM on 14 September 2006

Can't we impound and dispose of the politicians instead? Nahhh, that would make too much sense, especially for the likes of DA Wes Lame, CC Bruce Whinehart, and Sheriff Jon Weasel.

Posted by: Dan at 10:22 AM on 14 September 2006
Post a comment









Remember personal info?