Boston's sign police conduct a sweep

Please don't feed the trolls....

In a probably pointless attempt to continue the adult, civil conversation we were having on page one...

cityrecord said:
As to the effect on entrepreneurs? Please. Businesses have a responsibility to abide by the rules and to know the rules. Anyone who opens a business without knowing the rules of a specific location is a fool. What a bunch of crybabies.
Click to expand...

While I see what you saying about businesses following rules, I wouldn't go so far as to call them crybabies. In fact I think they have the right, and to be honest, the responsibility to to complain about any law or rule they find to be unfair or even pointless. Calling attention to an unjust rule is the first step in overturning it.
My question to you is, do think the law/rule should be overturned or do you feel the sandwich boards are an eyesore? If so why?
 
While the Back Bay should be meticulously preserved, it should not be entombed. Sandwich boards by their nature are temporary and therefore I don't see how they damage any architecture or history.
 
bosdevelopment and dudeursisterishot:

Thank you for your kind words.

statler:

The Back Bay is an architectural conservation district, with rules and regulations regarding the appearance and upkeep and the buildings within that district. Boston profits greatly (through property taxes) by keeping the historic character of the Back Bay intact as much as it can. This shouldn't be a shock to property or business owners. Boston has always regulated business signs and the Back Bay has, since its inception, had rules about what can be built there.

Sidewalks are public ways. Business and property owners have a responsibility under the law to keep them free of obstructions, whether they be sandwich boards or snow. How would we feel if Clear Channel rented a small space in every building on Newbury Street and placed advertising sandwich boards in front of every building? How would we feel if every business on Newbury Street suddenly decided it needed a sandwich board out on the sidewalk? How do we determine valid sandwich boards from invalid ones? And why should a public way be usurped by a business to use for free advertising?

Two or three sandwich boards on Newbury Street may not matter in the grand scheme of things. But again--what is to stop every business and tenant within a building from putting out their own sandwich board on Newbury Street if the city allows the two or three?
 
Sandwich boards and other signs should be used only to advertise the business at that address, not anything else. This is a reasonable and proper rule. Some highways have similar rules for billboards.

My understanding is that even sandwich boards on private property were being scooped up in this dragnet.

I lean towards "keep it lively" rather than "keep it orderly", as long as the integrity of the buildings is respected. If you want orderly, walk up to Comm. Ave. or Marlboro St. which are zoned strictly for residences.
 
cityrecord said:
Two or three sandwich boards on Newbury Street may not matter in the grand scheme of things. But again--what is to stop every business and tenant within a building from putting out their own sandwich board on Newbury Street if the city allows the two or three?
Click to expand...

I guess you were right originally. We will have to agree to disagree. :)
I would encourage each shop to put up a sandwich board (within reasonable limits -size, location, etc.).
I think they add charm and character to the street. Though Newbury Street is museum quality, it is still a living, breathing shopping district and shouldn't be treated as a museum piece.
 
???

I don't find sandwich boards obtrusive, or ugly, its a part of city life. The rule should certainly be changed...

my problem is that of all the people who work, shop, and stroll down that street, how exactly does getting 15 complaints in one year constitute "many complaints" about the sandwich board? Really? 15 in one year? what does that amount to? about .0005% of the number of people who must actually suffer through the huge inconvenience of knowing the day's specials?
 
The only problem is that some addresses have two, three, ten businesses within a single building. What happens when everyone puts out a sandwich board? In that case I suppose Boston could bid on an upcoming summer Olympics, because the track for the high hurdles would already be in place.
 
cityrecord said:
The only problem is that some addresses have two, three, ten businesses within a single building. What happens when everyone puts out a sandwich board? In that case I suppose Boston could bid on an upcoming summer Olympics, because the track for the high hurdles would already be in place.
Click to expand...
Maybe limit each address to one or two boards and the business can either set a schedule amongst themselves or the landlord can 'sell' sandwich board space as part of the rent/lease agreement.
It's not a very high hurdle to overcome. :)
 
...

cross that bridge when you get to it... i don't see a 'problem' of too many boards...
 
cityrecord said:
The only problem is that some addresses have two, three, ten businesses within a single building. What happens when everyone puts out a sandwich board? In that case I suppose Boston could bid on an upcoming summer Olympics, because the track for the high hurdles would already be in place.
Click to expand...

The problem is that theres millions of cars on the road. What if every single one of those cars drove out onto the road at once? What would we do then?

Because of this, it is completely logical and sensical to outlaw cars.

Stop talking in ridiculous hypotheticals, they aren't helping your argument.
 
Dudeursistershot:

Apparently you don't understand that it is currently illegal to put signs on the sidewalk, while it is legal for cars to drive on streets. That's the fundamental difference which escapes you. If the city allows some businesses to put signs on the sidewalk, then it doesn't have much recourse if all businesses suddenly put signs on the sidewalk.

My argument is that people should be expected to obey the law as it is written and they shouldn't be surprised when it is enforced. Apparently you believe in bending and breaking the rules at your own whimsy. What a surprise. Perhaps you can explain why the city doesn't have a compelling interest in keeping Newbury Street free of signs?

As to your earlier argument that this is the kind of thing that makes people move their businesses from Boston and the Commonwealth, you should look at the average per square foot rent for retail on Newbury Street compared to anywhere else in the city. Then you can tell me if the city's policies in regards to Newbury Street are effective or not.
 
But - to what extent is this about signs on sidewalks (city property), and to what extent about signs on private property? That is not clear to me from any of the articles or subsequent discussion.
 
Ron:

Boston sign regulations cover both signs placed on public sidewalks and private property. I can't put a billboard on top of my house for example, which is unfortunate, because I live on one of the highest points in Dorchester. Likewise, only two tall buildings in Boston have the right to display their names at the tops of the buildings--State Street Bank and the Prudential Tower.
 
cityrecord said:
Dudeursistershot:

My argument is that people should be expected to obey the law as it is written and they shouldn't be surprised when it is enforced.
Click to expand...

That is a reasonable thing to say.

cityrecord said:
Apparently you believe in bending and breaking the rules at your own whimsy.
Click to expand...

strange how that works, huh? And I thought anti-liberals were the one's who were strict constructionists when it came to constitutional interpretation...? That is, people who hate liberals are those who are against interpreting the constitution and for abiding it word for word, regardless of changing circumstances. Dude needs to re-examine where he stands politically i think. Perhaps he himself is a liberal and doesn't know it? aaaahhhhh. That would be like a blind white supremecist having surgery and realizing hes in fact black. aahhh.
 
OK, but now we have a few different issues, all conflated together: signs blocking public sidewalks, permanent sgns on private property (e.g. billboards), and temporary signs on private property that are only displayed when a business is open. Since these are three very different things, it would make sense to govern them with three different kinds of rules.

In fact, a hypothetical billboard on top of cityrecord's house even brings in a fourth issue, that of residential vs. commercial zoning.
 
Ron,

I was simply pointing out that Boston's sign regulations cover a wide variety of examples on both public and private property and that the city does regulate signs on private property. The fact that signs may have been on private property on Newbury Street makes not a whit of difference to the rules of the Back Bay Business District regulations, which I believe Newbury Street falls under. In other words, it is my understanding that temporary freestanding sidewalk signs aren't allowed on private property or public property on Newbury Street. Sign regulations vary throughout the city: even within the Back Bay, signage rules differ for the residential sections and those zoned for business.

Here is a link to the Back Bay residential guidelines:

www.cityofboston.gov/environment/pdfs/backbayguidelines.pdf
 
cityrecord said:
Ron,

I was simply pointing out that Boston's sign regulations cover a wide variety of examples on both public and private property and that the city does regulate signs on private property. The fact that signs may have been on private property on Newbury Street makes not a whit of difference to the rules of the Back Bay Business District regulations, which I believe Newbury Street falls under. In other words, it is my understanding that temporary freestanding sidewalk signs aren't allowed on private property or public property on Newbury Street. Sign regulations vary throughout the city: even within the Back Bay, signage rules differ for the residential sections and those zoned for business.

Here is a link to the Back Bay residential guidelines:

www.cityofboston.gov/environment/pdfs/backbayguidelines.pdf
Click to expand...

Okay, I think we have established (through numerous posts) the fact that there are regulations restricting the use of sandwich boards in the Back Bay Business District, specifically, along Newbury Street on both public and private property. The fact that the regulation is exists or not is not the arguement. The arguement is whether or not this regulation ought to be toned down, scaled back, or out right removed.

It is obvious to me that the sandwich boards have, for the past umpteen years that they have existed on Newbury, have not and were not a detriment to Back Bay, the businesses, the character, or mankind.

Cityrecord, we know the regulation exists, but all we are saying is that it is a completely useless one and ought to be rescinded.

Do you honestly think that these particular sandwich boards on Newbury Street has altered the character of the neighborhood? Do you want to keep Back Bay in a glass enclosed box where there is a lack of life and energy just so we all can say how pretty it is? People work, live, and shop in this neighborhood.
 
And I have made it quite clear that I don't think the regulations should be removed and that the signs should continue to be banned, for a variety of reasons.

The "Do you want to keep Back Bay in a glass enclosed box where there is a lack of life and energy just so we all can say how pretty it is? People work, live, and shop in this neighborhood" line of argument doesn't resonate, as it strikes me as another variant of the NIMBY attacks posters here so often make and has no basis in reality--it is simply a scare tactic. The Back Bay is not currently a "glass enclosed box" and having businesses conform to the signage regulations won't turn it into a "glass enclosed box" except in the fevered minds of the develop-at-any-cost crowd. For the glass enclosed box you'll have to look to the new Apple store on Boylston Street.

People have worked, lived, and shopped on Newbury Street with the regulations in place and the rents on Newbury Street have not suffered at all. I hardly think Newbury Street or the Back Bay in general suffers from a lack of life and energy. I also fail to see how sandwich board signs are indicators of "life and energy"--I always figured the throngs of people indicated that and I don't believe they're coming because of the signs on the sidewalk.

I also haven't heard a response to how people would handle the situation if every business on Newbury Street suddenly put a sign on the sidewalk. Do people honestly believe that most businesses wouldn't put out signs if they suddenly were allowed to? Even if signs are allowed, you're going to end up with some kinds of regulations as to size, shape, color, hours of usage, temporary, permanent, lit, unlit, etc. Why open the Pandora's box to even more regulation of businesses? Finally, private businesses do not have an unrestrained right to use the public sidewalks for their own economic benefit.
 
A start to what I was going to say, ZenZen, but to expand it further...

Let's talk about the clutter. I think the boards have been there my entire lifetime. I never recall anything less than the obstacle course of sandwich boards. Never bothered me. Considering the street's upscale reputation, even the high-end stores have been known to place sandwich boards.

So, onto a different angle--what about the less than desirable shops, i.e., the 'downscale' ones, that proliferated the upper end of Newbury, then the smattering that dribbled down toward Arlington in the 70s and 80s? I bet those 'eyesores' weren't a part of the Newbury Street 'plan'.

These certainly didn't 'fit' with the perceived 'character' of the street, yet they had the ability to afford the rents for some period of time. Yeah, nothing illegal about them, I know. But, shit, they are the ones that started placing all those messy boards to begin with. Arrggghhh!

Holy shit! After so many years of NOT ENFORCING this ordinance--WTF!

A warning or grace period, perhaps? A clarification before a 'militaristic' stomp, kick and seizure? And where's the massive merchant march over to City Hall to wave some fists at their district rep? (To hell with the BBAC, BBHC, BBWC...)

I've read most of this in a day and I laughed I cried, I got pissed off and I wanted to rally and start a fund drive for I don't know what. OMG! The next ABC Movie of the week! Newbury Street's troubles are so...so...so...paramount! Magnificent! Earthshattering! The drama!

If this was Telegraph Ave in Berkeley, the firebombings and the rock and bottle fights with the man would have come and gone within 24 hours of this absurdity. This almost ruined my picture viewing on the Photo of the Day thread. But I'm going to breathe in, relax, exhale...ohmmmmmmm....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top