HELL NO, AND ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT SHOULD BE RELIEVED OF THEIR DUTIES! lol seriously though, that is a very ignorant statement. To think Edmond would resemble Vegas because there will be an electronic sign on every corner is ridiculous. In case you haven't heard, Edmond has recently approved electronic signs with 30 second pauses in changing the picture passed, thankfully, and now some former mayors are banding together to try and stop it. I think these signs are great and will be just another sign that brings Edmond to a part of the 21st century.


Former mayors push electronic sign repeal
James Coburn
The Edmond Sun

EDMOND — Three former Edmond mayors joined forces Tuesday in filing an initiative petition against the City Council’s recent approval of the electric sign ordinance. Randel Shadid, Dan O’Neil and Saundra Naifeh have 90 days to collect 640 signatures to send the issue to a vote of the people. Signatures must be given by Edmond residents.

The City Council voted 3-2 in January to allow electric signs in zoning districts. Councilwoman Elizabeth Waner and Councilman Darrell Davis voted against the item.

- See more at: Former mayors push electronic sign repeal » Local News » The Edmond Sun (http://www.edmondsun.com/local/x1783667817/Former-mayors-push-electronic-sign-repeal#sthash.dgnBe8zT.dpuf)


Electronic message signs will be allowed in all zoning districts along arterial streets, as defined in the Master Transportation Study. These corridors are on Broadway, Second Street going east to Interstate 35, West Edmond Road and 33rd Street from Broadway to Boulevard, said Bob Schiermeyer, city planner.


O’Neil said the electronic message signs will lead to larger ones, much like the billboards seen on interstates.

“Competition for the drivers’ attention will lead to more and more of these signs until Edmond resembles Las Vegas,” O’Neil said. “That is not the image we want to reflect in Edmond.”

smh.... cities all over the US have allowed these signs and they don't resemble Vegas.

Electronic, flashing, an such signs are tacky. I think the codes and planning commission have done a very good job on improving our signage, and helping improve the look of our corridors (although we still have some overly large and trashy signs grandfathered in).

Don't OKC my Edmond

It seems like everyone was against the former sign's code requiring the short height, etc but I am thankful for it every time I drive through some place like Midwest City that has 20 foot signs all over the place.

I think some small electronic signs may be acceptable, but some of them are very distracting. Case in point, Keyhealth that just bought Transformations Fitness put up a very bright electric sign that is really distracting to me when driving to work when it is still dark. I think the key is balance and common sense.

Edmond's suburban development is by and large more aesthetically attractive than even the nicest areas of suburban OKC. I don't think electronic signs have anything to do with it though. It is more due to the fact there are less tin siding buildings and better landscaping in Edmond than OKC. I would say that's a very ignorant thing for the former mayor to say. Even if electronic signs are tacky, which it can be argued that they are, having them will in now way cause Edmond to resemble Las Vegas.

What distracts me most are people so easily distracted by bright and flashy things.

Plenty of the DFW suburbs, some way nicer looking than Edmond, allow them and it looks just fine. Not an issue if you base it on that really.

I've been to both. Don't see any resemblance.

There is an ugly strip mall on every corner and they are worried about modern signs? Idiots.

Happy almost life-long Edmond resident.

There is an ugly strip mall on every corner and they are worried about modern signs? Idiots.

Happy almost life-long Edmond resident.

So all those ugly strip malls will look better with electronic signs in front of them? If the signs aren't designed to attract the attention of drivers why would businesses install them?

BCGKdpOimt0

So all those ugly strip malls will look better with electronic signs in front of them? If the signs aren't designed to attract the attention of drivers why would businesses install them?

BCGKdpOimt0

Oh, I'm an idiot. I didn't read the whole thing and thought they didn't want to look like vegas because it's "ugly". Safety is another issue, but ALL signs are designed to grab a driver's attention. Might as well get rid of traditional billboards.

Might as well get rid of traditional billboards.

Lot's of cities are doing just that. Try putting up a new billboard somewhere.

So all those ugly strip malls will look better with electronic signs in front of them? If the signs aren't designed to attract the attention of drivers why would businesses install them?

BCGKdpOimt0So in your view, ALL signs should be banned, so no one will be able to take 2 seconds (at most) to glance up and look at a sign.

Also, Edmond's code wouldn't allow the electronic portion of the sign to be that big and take up that much space and the message will only be to change every 30 seconds. What you're spreading is nothing but propaganda and looking at the bad parts. I have seen electronic signs that are ugly and have seen twice as many conventional signs that are ugly to every electronic sign.

Lot's of cities are doing just that. Try putting up a new billboard somewhere.For large billboards, I think they are ugly for the most part and should only be allowed in very few places. I could thing of probably 30-50 of them I would remove in OKC. :p

Attorney: Sign petition seeks to eliminate all future digital messages » Local News » The Edmond Sun (http://www.edmondsun.com/local/x2118240526/Attorney-Sign-petition-seeks-to-eliminate-all-future-digital-messages)

So in your view, ALL signs should be banned, so no one will be able to take 2 seconds (at most) to glance up and look at a sign.

Also, Edmond's code wouldn't allow the electronic portion of the sign to be that big and take up that much space and the message will only be to change every 30 seconds. What you're spreading is nothing but propaganda and looking at the bad parts. I have seen electronic signs that are ugly and have seen twice as many conventional signs that are ugly to every electronic sign.

I am not for banning parking lot signs, I am for creating an environment where there isn't a place to put them. :)

This is so dumb... can't believe this is even happening.

Edmond city staff members will verify signatures on petitions to ban electronic messages | News OK (http://newsok.com/edmond-city-staff-members-will-verify-signatures-on-petitions-to-ban-electronic-messages/article/4859286)

Why not?

Why not?Oh I don't know... perhaps because countless other cities have them and they look great. Maybe this city needs to get with the program. Electronic signs are a great easy way to advertise specials and sales and if you are going to try and say it will cause distracted driving, then you better start pointing fingers at billboards and pretty much any sign period as they are designed to get your attention and let you know what business is there.

It's not just distracted driving. It comes down to appearances. I like that Edmond limits flashing signs, neon signs, etc. And I say this as someone who was a retailer in Edmond until recently, and I had my own run-ins with sign enforcement. I'd hate for Broadway to start looking like 39th Street.

It's not just distracted driving. It comes down to appearances. I like that Edmond limits flashing signs, neon signs, etc. And I say this as someone who was a retailer in Edmond until recently, and I had my own run-ins with sign enforcement. I'd hate for Broadway to start looking like 39th Street.They are going to limit the flashing to only changing the image to once every 30 seconds though. I don't think EVERY retailer or business will use them though. They're not cheap from what I understand but I really like the looks of them. I also believe they will be set inside of a structure so the electronic sign itself will only take up 60-80% of the entire sign.

Edmond initiative petition against electronic signs has enough signatures | News OK (http://newsok.com/edmond-initiative-petition-against-electronic-signs-has-enough-signatures/article/4987994)

It's not just distracted driving. It comes down to appearances. I like that Edmond limits flashing signs, neon signs, etc. And I say this as someone who was a retailer in Edmond until recently, and I had my own run-ins with sign enforcement. I'd hate for Broadway to start looking like 39th Street.Let's finish this conversation since you think talking on FB is somehow making me insane.

Edmond didn't limit it, it was banned. You had to get a variance on them which was very rare to get and most only achieved by gas stations by a tiny sign.

And I'm OK with that. How is it that you seem to love Edmond, and the amazing progress and achievements, while disdaining the very folks who leadership, work, and vision has achieved that same progress?

I'm sure there are business on University that hate the removal of 2 lanes and the creation of the bike lanes. I'm sure it reduces traffic, makes parking harder, and effect business. Are the wants/interests of the business owners only valid on certain things, or should they dominate all things?

I'm very ok with requiring a variance. Keep the rules firm, and make someone justify an exception. Or maybe we should remove ALL zoning and permit requirements?

Oh, I'm an idiot. I didn't read the whole thing and thought they didn't want to look like vegas because it's "ugly". Safety is another issue, but ALL signs are designed to grab a driver's attention. Might as well get rid of traditional billboards.

A lot of places are no longer allowing traditional billboards, many existing ones are just their since they are grandfathered by earlier permission, the electronic ones are harder for the human eye to ignore. Probably their main benefit from an aesthetic view verses a traditional version is it pretty much eliminates that at some points in time that the ad will have the pealed or hyper faded because no one is paying them enough to change it and they do not want to give free ads away, plus since they can time share the ads there is a wider base of customers so less likely to get to that point.

If they have not already started to try and un-repeal the ban in OKC, they probably will be trying soon. I noticed in the most recent Riverfront Design Committee that a group was trying to get permission to build a pole billboard that would be visible on from i40 near May. Since it was in violation of at least three city regulations, violated the development criteria for the district and carried a staff recommendation to deny they asked to have the item deferred till October. Not sure how any of that it is going to be any less prohibited by then.

And I'm OK with that. How is it that you seem to love Edmond, and the amazing progress and achievements, while disdaining the very folks who leadership, work, and vision has achieved that same progress?

I'm sure there are business on University that hate the removal of 2 lanes and the creation of the bike lanes. I'm sure it reduces traffic, makes parking harder, and effect business. Are the wants/interests of the business owners only valid on certain things, or should they dominate all things?

I'm very ok with requiring a variance. Keep the rules firm, and make someone justify an exception. Or maybe we should remove ALL zoning and permit requirements?there wasn't any traffic on those lanes to begin with.

The variance thing is completely dumb. You just obviously have no clue how modern cities function and if you want Edmond to not have that competitive edge, then whatever.

Council sends proposed sign ordinance to ballot » Local News » The Edmond Sun (http://www.edmondsun.com/local/x1736713598/Council-sends-proposed-sign-ordinance-to-ballot)

One of the things I noticed in Paris was the near complete lack of any electric signs. The only ones allowed with any consistency were the green crosses at pharmacies.

One of the things I noticed in Paris was the near complete lack of any electric signs. The only ones allowed with any consistency were the green crosses at pharmacies.

Wow, and businesses want to locate in Paris? I thought they wouldn't go into a place without flashing electronic signs?

The fact that a business would choose not to locate in Edmond because of sign zoning laws is both absurd, and it ignores history. I love how I get constant personal attacks and poor attempts at civic from someone just for disagreeing. And considering I grew up active in Edmond city governments, and a son of a councilman through the 80's, (and a resident of over 30 years) I think I have plenty of knowledge in Edmond history and politics, as well as city structure.

I also think personal attacks are reflective on the person making them.

I am not sure if Jax recently started allowing these types of signs or not but I have noticed a lot of them springing up here and honestly, most of them are pretty crappy with the resolution and it makes the areas they are in look junky and low-rent. One thing to consider: even though each sign is only supposed to change ever 30 seconds or so when you put 4 or 5 of them right in a row the scene is constantly changing. The worst part is their use is contagious because businesses that don't need the sign feel they need to compete just to bring in customer (and the front door being 60 feet from the road doesn't help - and is the real issue that needs to be solved). For the life of me I don't know why a Lay-z-Boy store needs an electronic flashing sign other than the fact that the furniture store down the street put one in because apparently furniture shopping is now an impulse buy.

Flashing electronic signs are not an indictor of progress - they are an admission of defeat.

Another bit of history and personal experience. When the McDonald's at 33rd and Broadway was built, they got tons of variances, to allow neon and other such. Part of getting those variances was a commitment to maintain the signage and the neon. Fast forward 10-15 years, and 1/4 of the neon was burnt out, signage looked crappy, and the store was run down. Luckily the store was sold recently, and rebuilt, inside and out, and is no longer a blight on the area. But it shows a hard truth. It's easier to enforce zoning and building codes upfront, then enforce conditions once things are already built.

"Oh Gosh! I wish all these stores could inform me of their sales on an electronic message board as I drive by at 45 mph" - No One, Ever

Just because electronic message boards are good for everyone else, is not enough reason to say they are good enough for Edmond.

Just because everyone else jumped off the electronic message board bridge, doesn't mean you should too. :wink:

One of the things I noticed in Paris was the near complete lack of any electric signs. The only ones allowed with any consistency were the green crosses at pharmacies.Guess you didn't look hard enough.

https://www.google.com/search?q=electronic+signs+in+paris&es_sm=122&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=FfXGU9CcGoT7oASjg4KQDA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=909

Wow, and businesses want to locate in Paris? I thought they wouldn't go into a place without flashing electronic signs?

The fact that a business would choose not to locate in Edmond because of sign zoning laws is both absurd, and it ignores history. I love how I get constant personal attacks and poor attempts at civic from someone just for disagreeing. And considering I grew up active in Edmond city governments, and a son of a councilman through the 80's, (and a resident of over 30 years) I think I have plenty of knowledge in Edmond history and politics, as well as city structure.

I also think personal attacks are reflective on the person making them.Dude, you have no clue what you're talking about. Shut the hell up about personal attacks. That is the only think you have to hold onto at this point in time because you can't make any other points.

I already apologized to you about that on FB and you ignored it and continue bitching about it on OKCTalk. Drop that garbage.

This has pissed me off so bad, I just called TWO people who have lived in Paris for over 15 years and they have both told me there are electronic signs all over the place, so JTF is wrong. The only reason you agreed with him is because it supported your viewpoint.

Like I said on FB, I will repeat this and after this I am done: RIGHT NOW, you have the freedom to place on these signs.

Here the facts:

The signs can only be placed on arterial roads(Broadway, 33rd, 15th, and one other street I believe).

They can only be so big and take so much of a portion of the entire sign

They can only change their image once every 30 seconds

-----------

These are among the strictest laws in the nation regarding electronic signs.

You are trying to take that right away. You have no logical arguments against them. The only things I have heard or seen is


it will cause Edmond to look like Las Vegas


"Oh Gosh! I wish all these stores could inform me of their sales on an electronic message board as I drive by at 45 mph" - No One, Ever


Oh, PP called me Smart Ass.... PERSONAL ATTACK!!!!!! blah blah

get over yourself.

We'll see if this bs ordinance is able to get repealed due to low-voter turnout as that is your only tactic because reason and logic does exist with these people. Lies, slander, scare tactics.... yeap, typical Edmond old slobs who just simply don't like something and think it should be banned for that very reason.

I also think it is funny you couldn't respond to my comment directly and had to wait for someone to say something so you could feel more confident in posting because you have someone to back you up. Good job man.

I actually felt bad because I did attack you on FB, but I take my apology back. It is apparently clear you have no logic, no reason, no competence, and base for your arguments. Only the hope that you will piss me off enough to where I will attack you on a personal level so you attempt to make an argument out of that.

I'm done posting about this issue, you can have the last. I am moving to L.A. this February and the 2%> of people that might vote on this issue can repeal it. The repeal will eventually be overturned and electronic signs will come Edmond even if this is overturned. You can't stop progress forever.

Have a good day and have continuing with your backwards thinking. I'm out!

One more point here: you said they need to get a variance to justify it, I find that funny, just because you don't like something, someone should have to get a variance in essence having to show up to a council meeting to make a case in order to attempt to justify why they should be allowed by the gods like you to put an electronic sign in; even when they are conforming it to some of the strictest codes in the nation.

Frothing out the mouth, and no rational behavior. If you're really out, it's for the best. I quit responding to you, because you provide nothing of value to the discussion. I'm happy to continue this discussion with the adults.

Flashing electronic signs are not an indictor of progress - they are an admission of defeat.

Quote of the month. And we don't often agree on much.

Frothing out the mouth, and no rational behavior. If you're really out, it's for the best. I quit responding to you, because you provide nothing of value to the discussion. I'm happy to continue this discussion with the adults.Exactly what I thought. You have nothing left to hang onto.

Flashing electronic signs are not an indictor of progress - they are an admission of defeat.Yes, JTF, a sign that flashes once every 30 seconds. My oh my..... that sure is defeat.

Kerry, are you familiar with this law? You are a very reasonable person, but I don't think you have read the restrictions that these signs will have to conform to.

To anyone who can make a case against this, I would sincerely appreciate an honest, rational opinion on this.

What exactly do you not like about these signs? The only people who I have seen oppose them are people like Jerry Wall and he can't even make a case besides saying they need to come to a vote of the people when we already elected people that voted on this. I don't mind having the people vote, what I mind is the tactic that is being used here. They are hoping on a low-voter turnout to have the majority of voters who do vote on this issue(less than two percent of the entire voter population in the city of Edmond) be against this so they overturn it.

The ordinance is very strict and outlines a set of rules you have to conform to.

They can only be allowed on these corridors:

These corridors are on Broadway, Second Street going east to Interstate 35, West Edmond Road and 33rd Street from Broadway to Boulevard.

They can only take up so much of sign

They can only change their image(or flash) once every 30 seconds

They are also limited on how bright they can be

So it would be really nice to have someone present a rational and reasonable discussion against these signs, but no one can.

It's the same garbage here. Then we have people like Jerry Wall take my statement of "It will cause the city to loose a competitive edge" which it will and turns my words into "no new cities will open up here because of not having electronic signs" from a statement made by JTF which turns out to be inaccurate.

So if I'm being unreasonable here, I'd really like to know; preferably from some of the more mature and respectable posters on this board

My case is I think they're distracting and ugly. There's also issue of light pollution, and the fact that I don't believe the signs would not be limited to the corridors, once you start allowing them in. Look for example the On Cue at 33rd and Broadway that argued "competitive edge" for an exemption, since they are close to OKC businesses. You think folks right next to the main corridor won't make the same arguments? I also believe, and have experienced, a signage arms race. The signs aren't as expensive as you seem to think, and in fact that's the problem. There are some pretty cheap ones that will start having burnt out leds and such pretty quickly.

I also have no problem with the vote, especially since it would take place during a regular principle election (not a special election) next april, and there is plenty of time for folks on all sides of that issue to campaign, communicate facts, etc, and the turnout seems to typically be higher than a special election. Did you sign the medical marijuana petition? Or should that issue also only be decided by elected officials.

And how is Edmond not competitive? It's amazing how we were able to get businesses, grow, be beautiful, and be competitive, without making the changes in the first place, yet now if we revert to the original ordinance, somehow we'll lose that competitive edge we've somehow managed to exist without. The sign ordinances banning the electronic signs has been in place since 1994, and I see no evidence of growth limitations in that time period.

I saw people making many of your same arguments in relation to the sign height ordinances, when they were put in place, and the expanded requirements for placement (back from the road) and vegetation ratios, etc, and now, years later, these policies and ordinances are universally considered major successes.

The funny thing is, I don't think you'd argue for NO restrictions on signage, would you? Assuming that's the case, we're both for sign restrictions and code requirements, we just disagree on the final definitions.

I also think good points are made here -

Meeting of ex-Mayors' minds (http://edmondlifeandleisure.com/meeting-of-exmayors-minds-p9601-81.htm)

Jerry, I'm not ignoring you... I'll post a few things a little later. I'm very tired and in dire need of some rest right now.

I'm still going to address those points

Here is the report from Edmond Exchange


Electronic signs vote is set for April 7

Council members passed this week a resolution for an April 7 election on an initiative petition to ban electronic signs in Edmond.

Petitions contained 1,109 signatures when turned in at city hall on May 19 by former Mayors Saundra Naifeh, Dan O’Neil and Randal Shadid.

City staff found 973 valid signatures during the verification process. Those opposing the electronic signs needed 644 valid signatures for the city to call an election. They collected 339 more than that.

“Let’s have it,” Naifeh said, waving her arms from her seat in the audience.

- Edmond Exchange for July 17 | News OK (http://newsok.com/edmond-exchange-for-july-17/article/5004893)

Doesn't Edmond know annoying electronic signs will make them big league.

I miss the days when I could take my old telescope out in my backyard and do some stargazing. Light pollution means different things to different people. Edmond can do what ever it wants, I just hope it doesn't cause anyone young or old a petite or grand mal seizure.

Yes, JTF, a sign that flashes once every 30 seconds. My oh my..... that sure is defeat.

Kerry, are you familiar with this law? You are a very reasonable person, but I don't think you have read the restrictions that these signs will have to conform to.

It is a sign of defeat because planning and engineering decisions in Edmond have resulted in commerce being harder to conduct. The electronic signs amount to nothing more than a 'work around' to all the failed decision.

If a company feels the need to have digital signage to have a competitive edge...than they've already lost the battle. I personally signed the petition, because I feel as if having digital signage everywhere looks like trash. No, I don't think it would turn Edmond into Las Vegas...but, it would go a long way into closely resembling 39th street, or 23rd street, or whatever other ghettoville avenue you want to use for comparison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOoKzw3JSCM

If a company feels the need to have digital signage to have a competitive edge...than they've already lost the battle. I personally signed the petition, because I feel as if having digital signage everywhere looks like trash. No, I don't think it would turn Edmond into Las Vegas...but, it would go a long way into closely resembling 39th street, or 23rd street, or whatever other ghettoville avenue you want to use for comparison.

Dumbest thing I've heard on this forum in a long time....

Dumbest thing I've heard on this forum in a long time....

There wasn't anything in the delivery of my message, nor were there any grammatical errors that would lead one to believe that there is a lack of intelligence on my part. So, if you interpret that post to be "dumb," than that is clearly a fabrication on your part. Sorry that you are butthurt from my opinion, that is shared by many here in Edmond.

There wasn't anything in the delivery of my message, nor were there any grammatical errors that would lead one to believe that there is a lack of intelligence on my part. So, if you interpret that post to be "dumb," than that is clearly a fabrication on your part. Sorry that you are butthurt from my opinion, that is shared by many here in Edmond.

Well, truth be told, I thought it was a pretty dumb post too. Calling 39th or 23rd, which might be the hottest stretch of redevelopment in the city, a ghettoville is pretty dumb. I know many Edmond dwellers want it to be some form of pleasantville but the hatred of any signs just seems to be misguided and counterproductive. Its hard to grow sales taxes if people dont know whats there.

As an Edmondite I say bring on the diversity.

Yeah, well, I simply give up in debating this. People are going to continue to believe in whatever it is they want to believe without any open mindedness to reason.

I read this link ( Meeting of ex-Mayors' minds (http://edmondlifeandleisure.com/meeting-of-exmayors-minds-p9601-81.htm) ) a few weeks ago, that Jerrywall gave me and it was literally the same crap I have already addressed.

All I have to say is, I will be in another city around April, and if this is passed, it will get repealed down the road as fresher minds come into the city council. The same will eventually happen with Guthrie, which has seen a lot of backwards decisions by their city council, and Guthrie is a true gem.

Calling 39th or 23rd, which might be the hottest stretch of redevelopment in the city, a ghettoville is pretty dumb.

In regards to 23rd street, it's awesome that they are recycling that part of the city. It definitely appeals to a certain type of person. I have frequented many restaurants lately along 23rd street, and although the food selection is great...it is somewhat unnerving to even be stopped at a stop light for an extended period of time in that area. Once again.....it appeals to some, for others it doesn't.

39th street? Really? Unless you are looking to purchase a 200,000 mile used Pontiac Grand Am from a tote your note lot, or score some meth.....I'm not really sure what reasons a person of sound mind would have to frequent that area. What is the redevelopment you speak of.

In regards to 23rd street, it's awesome that they are recycling that part of the city. It definitely appeals to a certain type of person. I have frequented many restaurants lately along 23rd street, and although the food selection is great...it is somewhat unnerving to even be stopped at a stop light for an extended period of time in that area. Once again.....it appeals to some, for others it doesn't.

39th street? Really? Unless you are looking to purchase a 200,000 mile used Pontiac Grand Am from a tote your note lot, or score some meth.....I'm not really sure what reasons a person of sound mind would have to frequent that area. What is the redevelopment you speak of.

I live around there, so there's that.

In regards to 23rd street, it's awesome that they are recycling that part of the city. It definitely appeals to a certain type of person. I have frequented many restaurants lately along 23rd street, and although the food selection is great...it is somewhat unnerving to even be stopped at a stop light for an extended period of time in that area. Once again.....it appeals to some, for others it doesn't.

39th street? Really? Unless you are looking to purchase a 200,000 mile used Pontiac Grand Am from a tote your note lot, or score some meth.....I'm not really sure what reasons a person of sound mind would have to frequent that area. What is the redevelopment you speak of.

This tells me all I need to know. Being unnerved by being at a red light at say, 23rd and Walker is pretty humorous.

Back to my reasoning that your was dumb. Companys need signage, plain and simple. It is highly critical and important for most businesses to have signs that attract customers. And the fact that towns depend on sales tax, attracting and getting shoppers is important. The other reason was that you have a very loose definition of ghettos. 39th and NW 23rd st arent much of a ghetto when you compare to other parts of the city.

And the redevelopment I spoke of was in regards to 23rd st.

This tells me all I need to know. Being unnerved by being at a red light at say, 23rd and Walker is pretty humorous.

Back to my reasoning that your was dumb. Companys need signage, plain and simple. It is highly critical and important for most businesses to have signs that attract customers. And the fact that towns depend on sales tax, attracting and getting shoppers is important. The other reason was that you have a very loose definition of ghettos. 39th and NW 23rd st arent much of a ghetto when you compare to other parts of the city.

And the redevelopment I spoke of was in regards to 23rd st.

I can't figure out why Edmond is raking in record sales tax collections, without all those giant electronic signs...

Actually, you do make one good point. Companies will always escalate the signage wars, if allowed. They'll always try to one up the shop down the street. Each time the line is moved, folks try to move it again. That's why lines should be maintained.

I can't figure out why Edmond is raking in record sales tax collections, without all those giant electronic signs...

Actually, you do make one good point. Companies will always escalate the signage wars, if allowed. They'll always try to one up the shop down the street. Each time the line is moved, folks try to move it again. That's why lines should be maintained.
THAT is a reasonable argument. While I don't agree with your position entirely or that all electronic signage should be prohibited, I would be agreeable some limitations (size, height, brightness) would be reasonable.

THAT is a reasonable argument. While I don't agree with your position entirely or that all electronic signage should be prohibited, I would be agreeable some limitations (size, height, brightness) would be reasonable.
Ps, they already are regulated, and heavily so.