Sign Law and Policy: A Second Model Sign Code
Monday, February 1, 2010
Ultimate test is with 39,000 regulating jurisdictions
It should come as no surprise to those in the on-premise sign industry, where we have two national trade associations, that 2009 ends with not just one but two model sign codes introduced, both presumably to educate and assist planners and citizen board members across the United States.
Readers of this column may recall that more than a year ago, the law professor and planner Alan Weinstein and the planner David Hartt presented a model sign code they authored, sponsored by The Signage Foundation, Inc. It stands as a solid document in all major aspects, and should win the positive review of many planners. Among its achievements is the conceptual presentation of “character areas” where different types and sizes of signs are used to align with a type of neighborhood or community.
Now comes the second model code, titled “A Legal and Technical Exploration of On-Premise Sign Regulation: An Evidence-Based Model Sign Code.” The code was authored by four academic individuals: Dawn Jourdan, Gene Hawkins, Robin Abrams, and Kimberly Winson-Geideman, each a Ph.D. The document itself is not copyrighted but seems to be under the aegis of an Urban Design Associates of College Station, Texas. (Note: this is a separate entity from the Urban Design Associates headquartered in Pittsburgh and a major architectural firm.)
The newly-released, second code, can be seen at:
EVIDENCE-BASED
Before we walk through the main sections of the code, a comment about the phrase “evidence-based.” It might seem arcane and only academic, but I found these “five principles of evidence-based management” at www.evidence-basedmanagement.com, and include them as additional points of conversation:
- Face the hard facts, and build a culture in which people are encouraged to tell the truth, even if it is unpleasant.
- Be committed to ‘fact-based’ decision making – which means being committed to getting the best evidence and using it to guide actions.
- Treat your organization as an unfinished prototype – encourage experimentation and learning by doing.
- Look for the risks and drawbacks in what people recommend – even the best medicine has side effects.
- Avoid basing decisions on untested but strongly held beliefs, what you have done in the past, or on uncritical ‘benchmarking’ of what winners do.”
I especially like the final point above about not making decisions on “untested but strongly held beliefs.” This is the core of frustration among sign manufacturers when facing planning boards with preconceived ideas of what signs should look like, how big they should be, etc.
THE CODE
Now to the three main sections of the code. The first is a legal analysis of sign regulations, authored by the University of Florida planning and law professor Dawn Jourdan. The focus for Dr. Jourdan is clearly signs as protected commercial speech, i.e., First Amendment issues. She reprises criticism of the American Planning Association-issued Street Graphics and the Law first presented by Dr. James Claus in the International Sign Association publication, Signline, several years ago, and then expands thus:
“While Dr. Claus, among others, has sought to notify the planning community with respect to the problems inherent in Street Graphics and the sign codes it has inspired, additional efforts, such as the initiative currently under way as a part of this contract, are necessary in order to further the momentum of this effort.”
Dr. Jourdan embraces, as she states, a “new way of thinking about signs, i.e., speech and not land use activities.” Later in her legal overview, however, she notes, “The land use designation of the property where a sign is posted is relevant to the discussion regarding the regulation of signage.”
I particularly support Dr. Jourdan’s analysis of Edenfield vs. Fane (507 U.S. 761) the 1992 Supreme Court ruling that I just used in my November 2009 column when reviewing the more recent Sixth Circuit case, Pagan vs. Fruchey. Dr. Jourdan comments:
“The planning community must recognize that this (Edenfield) decision represents a significant departure from broad level of deference afforded by the courts to decisions made by local government officials. Because of the holding in Edenfield, local governments must prove that any harm they seek to address with an ordinance is materially advanced by the proposed regulations. This ruling compels governments to do more than allege traffic safety or aesthetics concerns as the basis for signage regulations.”
The other two major sections of this new model sign code involve technical issues of appropriate sign regulation (letter size, height, lighting, etc.) and was authored by H. Gene Dawkins, Jr., a Texas A&M civil engineering professor and an acknowledged expert on regulatory and traffic signs. Dr. Dawkins moves through a volume of research in this section. In particular, I want to further study his findings on sign luminance and aspects of parallel sign placement. But that will be the topic of a future column.
The final major section is the model sign code itself. Many readers likely would jump to the language on electronic message centers (EMCs) to see how the authors view this heavily-regulated technology. That model code language states:
Such displays may include messages that are static, messages that appear or disappear from the display through dissolve, fade, travel or scroll modes, or similar transitions and frame effects that have text, animated graphics or images that appear to move or change in size, or be revealed sequentially rather than all at once.
Zoning: Only static electronic message centers may be erected in residential areas. All types of electronic message centers shall be permitted in areas designated for commercial and industrial activities.
All electronic message centers shall be equipped with automatic dimming capabilities.
That’s it on EMCs. The authors’ brevity is explained with this footnote: “Due to the lack of scientific evidence available regarding how specific EMC message time intervals affect human reading and comprehension abilities, this model sign code does not offer any recommended time intervals for commercial EMCs.”
COMMENDING ISA
This is the point of the story where I should commend ISA for funding this newest model sign code. After all, it contracted with UDA for just such a document, (see sidebar of the ISA board motion). In its July 2009 newsletter, ISA noted that the “UDA team’s overarching objective was to plan for an environment in which signs can be individually conspicuous, while creating a safe and orderly landscape that is easily navigable.”
Whether the UDA document ultimately holds up in the court of public opinion, planners being imminently central to its acceptance, is an answer only the future can bring. Another viewpoint has been given birth with the UDA model sign code. Good for that.
ISA’S MODEL SIGN CODE – ISA
Following is the official language of ISA’s board approval of both the SFI and UDA model sign codes. The document can be seen at:
Model Sign Code – Approved 2.25.09
- Whereas, there are thousands of jurisdictions across America, each with their own unique sign code
- Whereas, according to a 2008 legal survey of sign companies, these sign codes are getting more restrictive and are adversely affecting business
- Whereas, several other model sign codes in circulation have been drafted by organizations not sympathetic to the benefits that on‐premise signs bring to small businesses and communities, or that do not contain the latest technical and legal information,
- Whereas, for several years sign companies and local officials have been asking ISA for a model sign code to assist in their sign code drafting process
- Whereas, in 2007 the ISA Board of Directors approved contracting with two vendors to draft two separate model sign codes for use by the industry and local officials
- Whereas, the Signage Foundation Inc. and Urban Design Associates model sign codes were each reviewed and approved by separate review teams
- Whereas, the SFI and UDA model sign codes were reviewed and approved by the ISA government relations committee
- Whereas the ISA government relations committee passed a motion on February 3, 2009, recommending that the ISA Board of Directors approve the SFI and UDA model sign codes,
- Therefore, be it resolved that the ISA Board of Directors approve the SFI and UDA model sign code for publication and distribution to members and local officials.
Tags:
Leave a Comment
Please sign in to leave a comment
Click here to Sign in. Don't have an account? Join Today (It's Free!)