The Council approved an ordinance last night designed to allow businesses more flexibility displaying temporary signs. Some of the reasons cited were "fairness," "promoting businesses in the city," "keeping up with Mesquite," "announcing dinner specials and weekend rallies," "more income to the city" (sales tax and banner fees), "politicians have them," and so on.
 
Bottom line: we will see more signs and banners in north Garland and along SH-190 than we've ever seen in our history. The temporary signs can be even larger than the regular signs. Businesses will be able to have extra signs up every weekend all year long, or whenever. For other sections of Garland that already have a deluge of signs from earlier eras, the number can be doubled.
 
It's not completely open-ended. Signs are limited to 80 square feet and can be up no more than 156 days per year (equivalent to three days every week). Permits can be for no longer than 60 days at a time but they can be back-to-back, no intervals between. Each permit will cost … something (the suggested amount was $100).
 
I voted against the ordinance. I support empowering businesses greater control over their marketing and I hope the new measures is healthy for business. I hope that the fact we have no idea of the consequences or how well it can be enforced prove to be of no concern.
 
However, as a guardian of the breadbasket of Garland, the SH-190 Corridor, the largest generator of sales taxes and property taxes for the city, the area with the most remaining development potential, I can't just ignore that there may be consequences. North Garland doesn't compete with Mesquite — we compete with Richardson and Plano and Allen and McKinney and even Frisco. Those cities aren't posting more signs. Shoppers in our area don't get giddy and start dumping the contents of their wallets at the sight of more signs and clutter (and I would argue no one does anywhere). Home buyers don't respond, "Oh, how cute!"
 
The development of north Garland has been a slow, steady, reasoned, and pretty careful process. A couple decades ago everything we take for granted today was not here. Firewheel Golf Park was the first city investment in our area, designed to bring homes with higher values and new businesses. Exclusive development standards for just north Garland were written to encourage and protect high-end investment. You could call it an experiment then but no longer — those standards have worked and worked well. Many, many times those standards have been copied citywide for the benefit of the whole city, but never the reverse.
 
I sincerely hope we see no harm, that businesses respect the way our area presents itself to the world, and that disciplined use will bring positive results for the buyer and seller. Conversely, we could be stripped of our marketing edge and the effect will be to make us look more like the tired shopping areas in the region — a grave, short-sighted injustice to our investments and to the city's resources. I asked to test the concept in an area that really wanted more signs and to measure the results. I can only postulate why we must all rise or fall at the same rate.
 
Signs can be used well and badly. Too many signs and no one can read any. Signs not sized to the task are useless clutter (for example: how far away? is traffic passing at 30 m.p.h. or 70?). All signs are designed to distract you from what you were doing, like driving. Other countries are trying to distract drivers less, even eliminating many traffic signs, so roads are safer. (What a concept, huh?)
 
There were ways of being more fair to businesses and less casual with the city's competitiveness if we had wanted to explore them. It's not good leadership to get focused just on the dot and ignore the larger picture.