City Council Disdains Citizen Opinion

Posted on September 24th, 2009 in City Council, HARC.

By Peter and Sherry Dana
We attended Tuesday’s City Council meeting to support the Georgetown Historic and Architectural Commission. HARC had denied a request for an amendment to the Tamiro Plaza building’s Master Sign Plan. Many speakers asked the Council to affirm HARC’s five to one vote so that HARC would retain its autonomy and integrity, and continue its mission without unwarranted pressure from businesses or council members.
The sign was not in compliance, the business refused to compromise, HARC denied their request, and yet the City Council voted four to two to overturn the HARC decision without stating any way in which HARC had acted inappropriately. Councilmembers Eason and Oliver warned of the terrible precedent of overriding HARC over the issue of a sign design insisted on by a national brokerage firm.
The issue of citizen support for HARC was treated as unimportant by the other attending councilmembers who supported this specific business and this particular sign. Three councilmembers said they liked the sign. One said he would never want to restrict business signage, even signs as big as a building. Signage approval is not the task of the City Council; they established HARC to “approve or disapprove Certificates of Design Compliance.”
One councilmember said of the majority of the speakers who voiced their support for HARC that if they did not “put their money where their mouth is,” that is to say, “if they don’t own a business or rent space on the square,” they should have no voice in the matter. We “non-business” folks pay the taxes used to maintain the square and we form the large customer base that keeps the square viable. HARC acts with all our long-term interests in mind rather than the dubious benefit to a single business demanding a non-compliant sign on the basis that their corporate headquarters in New York demands a specific design.
Rather than support a larger and brighter sign than allowed by the Master Sign Plan, we had hoped our City Council would have supported a stronger and brighter future for Georgetown by affirming the decision of our Historic and Architectural Commission.
[Note: this was a letter sent to the Williamson County Sun on September 24, 2009, reflecting the Council decision made on September 22.]

By Peter and Sherry Dana

We attended Tuesday’s City Council meeting to support the Georgetown Historic and Architectural Commission. HARC had denied a request for an amendment to the Tamiro Plaza building’s Master Sign Plan. Many speakers asked the Council to affirm HARC’s five to one vote so that HARC would retain its autonomy and integrity, and continue its mission without unwarranted pressure from businesses or council members.

The sign was not in compliance, the business refused to compromise, HARC denied their request, and yet the City Council voted four to two to overturn the HARC decision without stating any way in which HARC had acted inappropriately. Councilmembers Eason and Oliver warned of the terrible precedent of overriding HARC over the issue of a sign design insisted on by a national brokerage firm.

The issue of citizen support for HARC was treated as unimportant by the other attending councilmembers who supported this specific business and this particular sign. Three councilmembers said they liked the sign. One said he would never want to restrict business signage, even signs as big as a building. Signage approval is not the task of the City Council; they established HARC to “approve or disapprove Certificates of Design Compliance.”

One councilmember said of the majority of the speakers who voiced their support for HARC that if they did not “put their money where their mouth is,” that is to say, “if they don’t own a business or rent space on the square,” they should have no voice in the matter. We “non-business” folks pay the taxes used to maintain the square and we form the large customer base that keeps the square viable. HARC acts with all our long-term interests in mind rather than the dubious benefit to a single business demanding a non-compliant sign on the basis that their corporate headquarters in New York demands a specific design.

Rather than support a larger and brighter sign than allowed by the Master Sign Plan, we had hoped our City Council would have supported a stronger and brighter future for Georgetown by affirming the decision of our Historic and Architectural Commission.

[Note: this was a letter sent to the Williamson County Sun on September 24, 2009, reflecting the Council decision made on September 22.]

 

No replies to “City Council Disdains Citizen Opinion”