Sign Ordinance 2010-900

[sheclown]

Ordinance 2010-900 would allow electronic changing message signs in Jacksonville to change every 8 seconds or to scroll continuously without any regulation as to brightness or spacing of signs.

The Urban Core CPAC as well as all but one of the other CPACs, have come out strongly against this ordinance fearing visual pollution, driver distraction, and neighborhood nuisance (who wants a 672 SF flashing billboard across the street?)

And yet, it appears the lobbying efforts on this ordinance are strong.

Council President Jack Webb is having a "public meeting" tomorrow (Wednesday April 6) @ 5:00 1st Floor City Council Chambers (117 W. Duval Street) to hear input from the community.

If you are concerned about the proposed sign ordinance 2010-900, please attend or email Jack Webb with your thoughts.

Webb@coj.net

[thelakelander]

I'm actually okay with electronic billboards and relaxing the signage ordinance in the urban core.  I think signage (in the right locations) is an important part of the urban experience.

[avonjax]

I agree with lake...

[Dog Walker]

Those electronic billboards won't be going up in the urban core, but on our expressways around town.  No question about needing to change the sign ordinance downtown, but those huge electronic things are too bright and too distracting, especially at night.

[thelakelander]

I'm actually fine with them along expressways in select locations as well.  However, I'm cut from a different cloth than most around here.  Imo, visual pollution is a very subjective issue that varies depending on the surrounding context.  

[Captain Zissou]

Those electronic billboards won't be going up in the urban core, but on our expressways around town.  No question about needing to change the sign ordinance downtown, but those huge electronic things are too bright and too distracting, especially at night.

I doubt it will be much more distracting than texting your friends on your iPhone.  It is concerning that there's no language to restrict brightness, but I'm sure common sense will sort that out.  

[johnnyroadglide]

If I were an enterprising business owner and this ordinance was passed, I know I could very easily find a loophole and its very obvious.

Bill Summary: The bill would amend Ordinance Code Chapters 362 â€" Signs and Outdoor Display Structures â€" and Part 13, Sign Regulations, of Chapter 656 â€" Zoning Code â€" to clarify the definition of a “changing message device”. The bill provides that the message on a “changing message device” may change in 1 of 2 ways: 1) a message consisting solely of words and numerals may scroll continuously from left to right with all other parts of the sign remaining static and unchanged; or 2) the entire face of the sign must change simultaneously within 1 second, after which the message must remain static for at least 8 seconds before making another entire-face change.

I would simply build my sign to scroll from right to left, as I have seen on many signs around the area. The ordinance doesn't say anything about right to left.

[kells904]

I doubt it will be much more distracting than texting your friends on your iPhone.  It is concerning that there's no language to restrict brightness, but I'm sure common sense will sort that out. 

Excellent point, CZ.

I've had the displeasure of driving up and down I-95 from Virginia to Florida and back.  There's plenty of things along the way to distract a driver, especially the "South of the Border" tourist trap in North Carolina, and the countless billboards that start 200 miles out in both directions advertising it.  My point is, there's always going to be distractions, and it seems to me like billboards of various sorts are being scapegoated.  I don't have a horse in this race, and don't really care either way.  I sort of get the concept that a ton of billboards could become a visual blight, but billboards--no matter how fancy or shiny--don't have hypnotic powers.  You CAN look away.

[wsansewjs]

If I were an enterprising business owner and this ordinance was passed, I know I could very easily find a loophole and its very obvious.

Bill Summary: The bill would amend Ordinance Code Chapters 362 â€" Signs and Outdoor Display Structures â€" and Part 13, Sign Regulations, of Chapter 656 â€" Zoning Code â€" to clarify the definition of a “changing message device”. The bill provides that the message on a “changing message device” may change in 1 of 2 ways: 1) a message consisting solely of words and numerals may scroll continuously from left to right with all other parts of the sign remaining static and unchanged; or 2) the entire face of the sign must change simultaneously within 1 second, after which the message must remain static for at least 8 seconds before making another entire-face change.

I would simply build my sign to scroll from right to left, as I have seen on many signs around the area. The ordinance doesn't say anything about right to left.

Just put the word 'ONLY' and the loopholes would disappear like magic!

Ah, the joy of English writing.

-Josh