Published: June 16, 2008 10:30 am      

Editorial: Consistency needed with sign regulations

Times change; technology changes. Any time a new technology is developed, someone will decide to use it to make money. It is, after all, the American way.

We used to have Burma shave signs, signs painted on the roofs of barns and billboards. Now we still have billboards, but they’ve been supplemented by electronic variable message signs. In their simplest form, EVMs have been used by businesses to tell us the time and temperature. Those signs developed to convey more complex information, and with the advent of computer control, they could be changed fairly rapidly, allowing, say, a bank to post its CD rates and the services it offers.

Now, light-emitting diode technology has been added to EVMs, and businesses can provide messages and pictures.

Not surprisingly, many businesses want to take advantage of this new medium, and also not surprisingly, cities are worried about the aesthetics and the potential distractions they provide. The state jumped into the fray by recently implementing rules that allow EVMs along highways that pass through cities unless the cities specifically object to them.

Keene recently decided to ban the signs, and Cleburne is struggling with the issue. In the absence of clear problems with the signs, however, cities should keep their regulations to a minimum.

Businesses generally have a right to put their messages before the public, and the EVMs serve that purpose, just as billboards do. And like billboards, cities that are concerned about aesthetics can regulate factors such as size and light intensity.

But they should not ban them entirely on the basis of how they look any more than they would billboards. And their regulation of the signs’ contents should be limited as well.

In Cleburne one of the issues is whether a sign belonging to a business should be allowed to advertise a service for another business. So far, the only businesses seeking to do this have the same owner. But there’s little difference between this practice and the city or chamber having signs they use to promote activities by local organizations.

Some would argue the signs, especially LED-powered EVMs are too distracting. But those who object have offered no hard evidence that the signs cause any more problems than a giant billboard with a doctor’s face staring down at drivers does. In fact, cell phones, GPS units, car stereos and food provide more distractions to today’s drivers than EVMs are likely to.

A city like Keene might want to preserve a specific look, but banning the signs will probably drive away some businesses who believe EVMs provide serious bang for their advertising buck. Cleburne’s roadways are already an olio of portable signs, billboards, letter boards and storefront signs. Allowing EVMs could actually be an improvement.

The keys here are balance and consistency. Don’t restrict trade, and don’t expect businesses to adhere to rules that don’t apply to the city or the chamber.



This editorial is the opinion of the Cleburne Times-Review