We apologize for all the dead links below. The City of Mt. Juliet recently removed from its web site ALL of the ordinances and resolutions passed by previous city commissions. Of course, they have no legal obligation that requires them to make them available on the web, but it is curious that they would take such a large step backwards. They have also stopped posting financial reports by the Finance Director/City Manager. All that’s left on the City website is a link to the City Charter. There is a notice up, soliciting bids to codify the cities ordinances. Will they be posted so the public can access them? Will the ordinances, resolutions, and minutes of city commission meetings be made available to citizens again? Stay tuned.
- Publius
The History of Mt. Juliet’s Sign Ordinance:
Original Sign Ordinance adopted, May 1987
Sign Ordinance Amendment, August 1988
Sign Ordinance Amendment, November 1988
Sign Ordinance Amendment, May 1989
Sign Ordinance Amendment April 1990
Second Sign Ordinance (original repealed) April 1994
Third Sign Ordinance (repeals previous) February 1996
Fourth Sign Ordinance (repeals previous) September 1997
Sign Ordinance Amendment December 1998
Fifth Sign Ordinance (repeals previous, and still current) March 2002
recommendation by the planning commission to approve December 2001
Sign Ordinance Amendment November 2005
Sign Ordinance Amendment April 2006
These links are collected here because Mayor Elam has a tendency to make stuff up (also known as “lying”) about the past. Its unfortunate, but you should always verify the official records before you take her word for something.
Here’s the post commenting on what she said about the current sign ordinance.
- Publius
1 Comment
August 29, 2007 at 8:47 pm
For the next several years the issue of signs will be an ongoing problem in the city. We don’t have the ability to envision all of the issues that will come up over the next 10 to 15 years. As the city continues to transform there will be a need for a dynamic process and procedure that will constantly need to be updated. Additionally, technology will also drastically change the landscape of sign issues. Some areas of the city are likely to take take on a different flavor than other areas. Business owners certainly have a vested interest in the process, and since businesses, especially businesses with cash registers, fuel the city financially, business owners should have a strong input in the process. Home owners are going to have to live in a city with those signs everywhere, so they too should have a strong influence over the process. I would recommend that the commission develop a board, much like the beer board and other boards. The board would be able to develop the process and regulate the sign approval process. The Board of Commissioners would ultimately have final say in the matter, but the board could develop the process and procedure, and it could ensure that things are done fairly and equitably for every business, and when change is needed, they would be best suited to lead the change. The board wouldn’t have to meet every month, it could meet once a quarter or every six months. It could consider new proposals and identify problems and then make recommendations on the proposals and problems to the commission.
Signs are obviously going to remain an ongoing issue, why not address it like it is a serious issue, because it obviously matters to a lot of people.
(I haven’t checked to see if the city has a sign board, but I don’t believe it does. )
Butch