Back in 1971 the Five Man Electrical Band did a song called “Signs.” It was a diatribe against various signs telling people what to do. You may remember it: Sign, sign, everywhere a sign Blockin’ out the scenery, breakin’ my mind Do this, don’t do that, can’t you read the sign? I couldn’t help but think of that song the other day when I read our reporter’s story about proposed changes to Warsaw’s sign ordinance. Right after that, I was thinking, “What in the world are these guys thinking?” I’ve perused the sign ordinance, and frankly, I have a tough time understanding the level of minutia it contains. The ordinance is seven or eight pages long and the more I read, the crazier it became. Take real estate signs. The ordinance says: A sign directing people to a property or indicating that a property or any portion thereof is available for inspection, sale, lease or rent. Real estate signs may only contain the name of the company and agent offering the property, the street address, and contact information as well as common phrases including the words, “for sale,” “for lease,” or “for rent.” OK, but what if it says “Open House Today!” You’re busted, I guess. And, by the way, you can only have one real estate sign per lot, so if you’re on a corner, you have to decide which street is the busiest. Or maybe stick it on the corner on an angle. The ordinance is chock full of this kind of stuff. It’s inane. It covers banners, commemorative, historical and memorial signs; construction, directional and drive through signs; flags, freestanding, identification, inflatable, marquee or canopy signs; monument, moving, multi-face, multi-tenant, mural, nonconforming, off-premise, portable projecting, public service, roof-mounted, sidewalk, single-faced, temporary, wall and window signs. After the “computations” and “general provisions” of this masterpiece of municipal legislation, I got to the “prohibited signs” section. “Signs erected on or attached to any sidewalk, street, tree lawn, tree, curb, curbstone (What’s a curbstone?), hydrant, lamppost, barricade, temporary walkway, telephone, telegraph or electric light pole, other utility pole, public fence or on a fixture of the fire alarm or police system except public service signs.” And this: Signs bearing words, phrases, symbols, colors or characteristics which may mislead, interfere with or confuse traffic. Remember, there are several pages of this kind of stuff. Before I get to what I perceive as an enormous overreach, I have a question. How in the world could this ever be enforced? And by who? Who gets to decide what “words, phrases, symbols, colors or characteristics” may “mislead, interfere with or confuse traffic”? Some of the stuff just seems random or vague or arbitrary. There are lots of restrictions based on measurements. So many square feet. So many feet from the road. So many feet tall. So many feet wide. Who’s going to go around and measure all this stuff to make sure it’s in compliance? Are cops going to have to attend sign school to be able to properly interpret this ordinance? Is the planning department going to have to hire more people to bird dog all the businesses in town to make sure they’re in compliance? But aside from all that, I just really see this as an unnecessary, complicated bureaucratic mess. I am not advocating a sign free-for-all in town. But seriously, it would seem common sense could prevail in most of these situations. Besides, in this economy, it’s the worst time to restrict businesses with convoluted regulations. Where do they come up with this stuff? The ordinance seems like something you’d see coming out of Washington – overreaching, burdensome, inefficient and ineffective. And for what? One of the types of signs they’re talking about banning is a “walking sign.” You know the kind. People walk around in front of a business with a sign, waving at you. On Super Bowl weekend we went to Indianapolis just to check it out. (No, we didn’t have tickets to the game.) We drove over to the Lockerbie Square Historic District, which, by any stretch of the imagination, is a very cool neighborhood. We parked and walked around. On one of the streets not far from James Whitcomb Riley’s house was a Subway sandwich shop. In front of it was a guy dressed up like a giant chicken with a sign hawking a chicken sandwich. (Clever, I know.) He was quite entertaining. He made me smile. Now, maybe Indianapolis or the Lockerbie Square Historic District has a sign ordinance akin to the one being proposed here and the giant chicken was simply in violation, but I doubt it. So here’s my question for city officials: If it’s OK for a giant chicken to hawk sandwiches in the Lockerbie Square Historic District of Indianapolis, why does that practice need to be banned here?
