Will Woodland Park’s proposed sign ordinance become the city council’s tar baby? It would seem so if what was reported in last Friday’s Gazette (“Our View,” Jan. 11) comes to pass. There certainly is more to the controversy than meets the eye.
Woodland Park City Manager David Buttery is not an enemy of Lisa Branden, who owns the Wild Wings ‘n Things franchise buried deep in the town’s Safeway shopping center. Neither is he an enemy of Branden’s yellow-clad Chicken Man, a walking (but not talking) human advertisement who stands beside U.S. Highway 24 waving an American flag.
Branden says the Chicken Man is necessary for her business to survive. Buttery and city planners want to restrict the advertisement to 90 days per year, a regulation Branden says would force her out of business. City officials fear allowing the Chicken Man to remain longer than that would somehow pollute the town’s image. What is being proposed by the city might work in the People’s Republic of Boulder, but not in Woodland Park. Besides, it's unconstitutional.
Buttery, a retired U.S. Army officer, is a foot soldier caught between basic rights of business owners and a planning bureaucrat’s idea of what a small mountain town should look like. While Buttery may have gone out on a limb to support whoever wrote the ordinance, by allowing the issue to boil over in the press he is exposing how far in the wrong direction one aspect of city government has drifted.
The question people should be asking is who wrote the restrictive (not to mention unconstitutional) ordinance? Where was the city attorney when it made its way through the planning process? Whoever let this one get by should be sent back to law school. Harrumphs aside, it should not be hard to get to the bottom of this.
That's because someone had to write -- and presumably someone else approved -- that whatever is not specifically allowed in Woodland Park is specifically prohibited. If Buttery, the mayor or members of the council did not approve these words, how did they end up in the proposed ordinance? I'm guessing they were put there by someone who wants total control over what signs are allowed. If that's the case, government in Woodland Park is out of control.
Aesthetics and maintaining mountain grandeur are laudable pursuits, but not when they conflict with the U.S Constitution. As long as a business conducts itself in a manner consistent with public safety and standardized health regulations, self-expression and the right of people to make a living without government interference is sacrosanct. The answer to the problem lies in the city’s planning philosophy, which is a council function.
Restrictive planning philosophies don’t develop overnight. Like a fungus, they and the regulations they spawn grow over time until they strangle the lifeblood of free enterprise.
New regulations aren’t needed. What is needed are fewer regulations and a different planning philosophy. Given direction by the council, Buttery will implement these changes. He certainly can ride herd on planners who have been breathing too much ozone.
Woodland Park’s restrictive ordinances are no secret to small businesses that have known for years the city fathers care more about big box stores. But small businesses are important too. (Try getting your clothes cleaned at Wal-Mart.) Image is one thing, but trampling on the right of freedom of expression, or the right of a small business to advertise effectively, is another.
A store like Wal-Mart can afford to spend millions on an advertising program. A small business like Wild Wings ‘n Things cannot. What city planners forget is that a destination town needs both.
It took a Chicken Man and the threat of a federal lawsuit to expose Woodland Park’s proposed ordinance for the turkey it is. What is being proposed now is not the fault of Buttery, mayor or the current council. But it’s a cinch the regulations will become their tar baby if they are implemented.
At a minimum the council should change the planning philosophy that allowed these goofy ordinances to see the light of day. While they’re at it they might even tell whoever wrote them that Woodland Park won’t ever be a Boulder, Colorado.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Woodland Park is a politically conservative area as noted by registered votes being predominantly Republicans. It the responsibility of the elected officials to represent us and should direct their staff, who are generally very liberal, to act in a manner consistent with community values.
I have worked with the city staff on the revised ordinance as a member of the business owners committee. This has been an exercise in futility.
1) The original ordinance was written in 1969 with a cursory revision in the mid 1990’s. The method revision method to date has been to again modify this document. It needs to be modernized not only in content but format.
2) There appears to be an agenda (although denied by city staff) regarding costumed characters, electronic messaging centers and anything to do with liquor stores and I am sure there are others.
3) We are only provided with parts of the revisions and are told that is addressed later yet the later language is not made available to the hard working business owners committee. We are only left to guess what lies ahead.
When questioned as to the constitutionality as to signage restrictions Mr. Buttery replied “is not a problem you won’t let me do that” At least he’s got that DAMN STRAIGHT.
Post a Comment