Friday, December 10, 2010

Dunwoody City Council Meeting Agenda for Monday December 13th at 7 pm

Monday, December 13th
Dunwoody City Hall
41 Perimeter Center East
Dunwoody, GA 30346
7:00 p.m. - Watch Live
Agenda for Special Called Meeting


Chip said...

Regarding the sunset clause to the sign ordinance, I'd make the following points.

1st) Staff and legal recommend against because it MIGHT involve litigation. And case law is "mixed" on outcomes. In point of fact, all ordinances that don't follow clear case law (if it exists!) MIGHT involve litigation expense, so that's a red herring.

2nd) The vast majority of legal, non-conforming signs are wooden post-in-ground signs, that if litigation carried to a damage claim, wouldn't amount to much. Unless the sign has some cultural or historic significance (say, The Big Chicken) the goodwill associated with the sign could be carried over into a new design that conforms.

3rd) The provision that "ground signs" be monolithic is the key issue, here. This requirement progressed unchallenged through 18 months of drafting and re-drafting the ordinance. Presumably, it has some intrinsic value. (What that specifically is, isn't clear.)

4th) If Dunwoody is serious about writing ordinances, they should be willing to defend them and to enforce them.

5th) The sign ordinance, as it stands, is also open to litigation by new business owners who can establish damages by preferential treatment of allegedly "grandfathered" signs that provide a competitive advantage to existing owners. This MIGHT result in litigation, too.

My point comes down to this. There was general consensus that Dunwoody needed a sign ordinance to improve the appearance and attractiveness of the City, and to avoid certain types of signs that were held to be objectionable. To the extent that the Dunwoody Sign Ordinance was drafted to meet these objections, its incumbent on the City to stand behind its ordinances and thus express the wishes of the citizens of Dunwoody.

Barring that willingness, the sign ordinance is just another "sham" or "unenforced" ordinance on the books.


Aleister Crowley said...

"And the sign said long haired freaky people need not apply
So I tucked my hair up under my hat and I went in to ask him why.
He said you look like a fine upstanding young man, I think you'll do.
So I took off my hat I said imagine that, huh, me working for you

Sign Sign everywhere a sign.
Blocking out the scenery breaking my mind.
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign.

And the sign said anybody caught trespassing would be shot on sight.
So I jumped on the fence and yelled at the house, Hey! what gives you the right?
To put up a fence to keep me out or to keep mother nature in?
If God was here, he'd tell you to your face, man you're some kinda sinner.

Now, hey you Mister! can't you read, you got to have a shirt and tie to get a seat.
You can't even watch, no you can't eat, you ain't suppose to be here.
Sign said you got to have a membership card to get inside Uh!

And the sign said everybody welcome, come in, kneel down and pray.
But when they passed around the plate at the end of it all,
I didn't have a penny to pay, so I got me a pen and a paper and I made up my own little sign.
I said thank you Lord for thinking about me, I'm alive and doing fine."

Les Emmerson

Gosh, all this peremptoriness being inflicted upon our lives in this new oligarchy of Dunwoody, even the urge to dictate something as trite as our signs, has me hearken back to the good old day of the 60's, or is it just a flashback, where we thought peace, love, and most of all freedom would reign!

GaryRayBetz said...

Here's a suggestion - pass a city ordinance that would make Dunwoody a zero tax haven (like they do in Ireland for writers and painters) for documented United States war or armed conflict veterans.

Of course, Dunwoody could only effect this for any city taxes, but it would still be at least a small gesture to the brave men and women to who so much is owed.