|
Last week, ISA informed
you that the American Planning Association (APA) published a revised version
of Street Graphics and the Law in October. This alert is the
second in a series of communications about this issue.
Street Graphics
and the Law was first published in 1971 and launched an attack on
U.S. retailing. The sign industry joined together and, with the aid of
Dr. Claus, we fought back. Industry members conducted seminars for planners
on the importance of signage and the fallacies of Street Graphics. By
1980 the industry was hopeful that reasonableness was returning to our
world.
Concurrently, in 1975
and 1976 the U.S. Supreme Court issued rulings which clearly declared
that the First Amendment’s civil right to free speech applied to
commercial speech such as signs. In 1980, the Supreme Court issued their
ruling on the Central Hudson case that strengthened these rights and established
rules governments must follow to prove their case for censorship.
The industry’s
hope was relative short lived. Most communities ignored the U.S. Supreme
Court.
In 1988, the APA published
a new edition of Street Graphics and the Law. In the forward
to this edition the authors incorrectly credited George Kopecky, president
of the National Electric Sign Association (NESA), thus implying his endorsement.
Mr. Kopecky rapidly responded and refuted this implied endorsement. NESA
published a statement in Signs of the Times magazine disavowing
any relationship with or endorsement of Street Graphics and the Law.
The planning
community launched a round of more restrictive sign ordinances. Retailing
in the U.S. suffered.
In the mid ‘90s,
APA began presenting seminars at their annual conferences that promoted
banning pylon signs and only permitting small monument signs. The APA
supported the restrictive work of Scenic America. APA members wrote booklets
published by the APA that contained anti-sign proposals.
Throughout this period
and continuing today APA members working as consultants wrote restrictive
sign ordinances. Some of these consultants even assist municipalities
in writing “Request for Proposals” which require that any
bidder prove that they’ve written restrictive sign ordinances in
the past.
In the mid
‘90s the industry began fighting back again. The Signage
Foundation for Communications Excellence, Inc. supported by a small group
of industry members, attempted to work with the APA’s research department
to produce a fair report on signage. Ultimately that effort, like Mr.
Kopecky’s, failed, because of the APA’s refusal to accept
much of the groundwork established by court precedent.
In 1997, NESA published
a traffic safety book, Safety and Human Factors Design Considerations
For On-Premise Signs, by Richard N. Schwab. This book built on the
work and writings of Dr. Claus which were published by Signs of the
Times magazine in the ‘70s
Beginning in 2000
the sign industry, represented by ISA, began to work extensively with
Dr. Claus. Three significant books have been published: The Value
of Signs, Unmasking the Myths about Signs, and most significantly
the joint U.S. Small Business Administration/Signage Foundation publication,
the Signage Sourcebook.
Another product of
Dr. Claus and ISA is the recurring publication of Signline, which
discusses specific issues of importance to signage and is distributed
to 7,000 community planners on a quarterly basis. These are available
to the public at www.plannersresource.org.
Today
the U.S. visual environment looks nothing it did prior to 1971.
Restrictive sign ordinances actually impair traffic safety. Signs
are hidden by vehicles, landscaping is planted in right-of-ways,
and landscaping is required by municipal ordinance. U.S. businesses
are blocked from communicating their messages to passing motorists.
Most
often, the sign industry is prohibited from serving our customers
and meeting their communications needs. Small businesses
are particularly harmed as they cannot supplement their meager signage
with expensive magazine, newspaper and television advertising.
|
Some communities
have started to realize the contradiction between over-regulation and
creative control . Signs of the past that creatively and properly communicated,
where they still exist, are starting to be treated as historic landmarks
and are being preserved by communities.
Street Graphics
and the Law is bad for our industry, bad for our customers, bad for
communities, and bad for anyone who wants to exercise his rights to commercial
free speech. It is simply the wrong approach to the regulation of signs.
Before the philosophies
of this publication permeate our cities and municipalities, we need to
take a stand. If you encounter a community contemplating enactment of
an ordinance based on Street Graphics and the Law, we urge you
to call immediately ISA’s Government Relations Hotline (866) WHY-SIGNS
or e-mail signage.help@signs.org
and request assistance from our experts.
Note to Readers:
A number of Dr. Claus’ early publications will shortly be available
to the public at www.plannersrsource.org.
Please bookmark this site and check back for updated information.
Due
to the importance of this topic, ISA will be distributing several communications
over the next few weeks. So check back each week.
|
