Signs

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Second Sign Ordinance (original repealed) April 1994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

Advertisements

5 responses to “Signs

  1. Butch Huber

    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

  2. Butch Huber

    I watched the commission meeting last night and observed politicians who passed the city sign ordinances going back and forth trying to amend the sign ordinances because they are personally affected by the sign ordinances because they are running for office personally or they want to support people who are running for office. Turns out that when an ordinance affects businesses, the sign ordinances are just fine, but when they affect politicians the sign ordinances need to change.

    Business people in this city have screamed and hollered over the sign ordinances and tried to get the commission to pay attention, but they wouldn’t listen. They took a stiff-necked, stubborn, obstinate stance and forced sign ordinances upon the business community that were oppressive at best. Now that they are in the same boat as the people they have subjected with their sign ordinances the sign ordinances must change.

    I agree that they should change, but the politicians should have to suffer the consequences of their decisions through this election cycle and then change the ordinances. It should serve as a reminder to them that they need to listen to understand, not endure public outcry and then do what they want anyway.

    Should there be sign ordinances? Yes, there should. Should there be some ration to the terms and conditions of ordinances? Yes, there should.

    Will Sellers said it in the meeting last night when he said that they should defer the vote because trying to change the ordinance right now doesn’t look good…Will, that was perhaps the best thing you have said yet. It is about doing the right thing, not the correct thing.

  3. Concerned Citizen

    Will gets it! He has name recognition why lets his future challengers get their names out.

  4. Pop Korn

    Will has figured out that the way to get re-elected is to run against Linda Elam. He has given up the position of Linda’s mini-me.

  5. Concerned Citizen

    At least until November 3rd.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s