This column is being written a few weeks after the November election results, with lots of change and related impact at the national, state and local levels. The emergence generally of the “Tea Party” as an influence on politics is particularly intriguing. 

 

Which leads to this question: why no (or so few) local tea parties, dedicated to rooting out corruption and waste in the many thousands of jurisdictions across the U.S.? Let’s face it, if the federal government overnight was cured of all its “issues,” left in place are 50 states, and all the counties, cities and townships that exist in each state. 

 

HANDS OFF MY SCHOOL DISTRICT

An example: suppose the federal Department of Education gets abolished. Does that automatically mean the 50 state departments of education get axed, also? Or do they gain ever more power and revenue? In any state are hundreds of school districts—each with full administrative staff, and across all the classes and activities, maybe just a bit of waste. But school district consolidation is a loaded political issue.

 

Focus now on my home county of Hamilton in Ohio. Here, including Cincinnati, we have more than two dozen jurisdictions—most with police and fire personnel, governing boards—and planning and zoning authority. If a person is dedicated to rooting out waste in government, shouldn’t all these jurisdictions be woven into one, cohesive and efficient unit?

 

The nearby major cities of Indianapolis, Lexington and Louisville each has consolidated city and county functions into a single “metro” government. Are those regions now “better” by some economic or political measure? The results are not clear. 

 

A LOYALTY TO THE LOCAL

My theory is many citizens are more loyal to their local government than their state government, more loyal to their state government than to the federal government, etc. At some basic level, we like our local government, inefficiencies included. It is part of the American experiment: messy, partisan and continuing.

 

This comfort with local government is not always extended to our local zoning boards, however, mostly due to their restrictive decisions. Or should we get rid of the local boards and have a national zoning code, and a national sign code? Wouldn’t that be easier? Be careful what you ask for!

 

At the end, the national conversation on the role and value of signage —advanced in forums like the recent NSREC signage research conference at the University of Cincinnati—starts an educational process that moves down into local communities, one at a time.

 

NSREC TACKLES SIGN INNOVATION

NSREC, co-sponsored by UC and the Signage Foundation (SFI), is now in its second year, and has grown admirably. There was one presentation that especially caught my attention, titled “The Regulation of Signage: Guidelines for Local Regulation of Digital On-Premise Signs.”

 

Two individuals familiar to readers of this column were the presenters: Alan Weinstein, the planning law professor from Cleveland State University, and Menelaos Triantafillou, a professor at the School of Planning at the University of Cincinnati. The duo built on concepts first used in the SFI model sign code co-authored by Weinstein and Cleveland planner David Hartt. 

 

I wish more in the on-premise sign industry could have had a chance to hear this presentation, if but to come across this truth concerning the regulation of electronic message signs (EMCs): “Local government is asked to issue a permit for something it does not understand.” 

 

The chart (see New Technology, Sign Design and the Planning Community Response) that accompanies this column, from Triantafillou, wonderfully summarizes the process and challenge of getting planners to understand innovation in sign technologies. Let’s look at each of the steps in his analysis.

 

First, “a new technology is made available and is used in sign design.” (Actually, the first step, as you well know, is getting the sign industry to adopt those new technologies! But that’s another column.) Triantafillou cites LED lighting and inkjet printing as but two examples of breakthrough technology.

 

INNOVATION then CONFUSION

Second, “the planning and zoning community reacts and does not permit the use of the new technology. Confusion follows.” And how. This point from Triantafillou relates well to that point when outdoor advertising companies first wanted to put up LED digital billboards. In retrospect, it was a time of enormous confusion. 

 

The next two steps in Triantafillou’s analysis mirror our current regulatory environment. Some communities are open to incorporating the new sign technologies. Other cities wait and watch. Then model sign codes begin to accommodate technologies such as LED lighting sources and electronic digital displays. The Weinstein/Hartt code, for instance, refers to the potential of EMCs to be “a dynamic asset to the economic vitality of each business and to the community.” 

 

The last substantive step for Triantafillou is noted, as “most communities adopt new regulations permitting the use of the new technology in sign design.” Regretfully, this step is only a fledging one pertaining to LED displays, or EMCs. There is still too much confusion and resistance among communities.

 

Yet, with analytical tools such as Triantafillou has created, I am encouraged that still can be what I would call a reasonable center to the emergence of this new generation of sign technologies. We can only hope that what we offer by way of innovation and what communities offer by way of regulation can share a middle ground, meeting the needs of both parties.

 

In the meantime, however, we all must deal more effectively with the challenge cited earlier, dealing with local government across the U.S. that is “asked to issue a permit for something it does not understand.”