Opinion: Proposed sign code troubling overreach by city government

If you’re looking for a sign as to whether government has grown too big in Clovis, you might find it at Thursday’s city commission meeting.

That’s when commissioners are scheduled to discuss and possibly pass an ordinance further regulating signs, billboards and even flag poles around town.

This is necessary, city officials tell us, because of a 2015 Supreme Court decision, which clarified content-based restrictions on sign codes for municipalities. So now we need to update our code. Also, too many signs are unsightly and Clovis needs to clean up, they contend.

But a fair number of Clovis business owners are raising their voices against this potential for government overreach. Some of our signs may be ugly, but they are essential to our economic success and protected under the First Amendment.

Our government leaders should be championing those causes, not looking for new ways to limit them in favor of the “aesthetic quality” they say they hope to achieve.

Of course we need limited guidelines for signs in the city limits. But we already have them, mostly from an ordinance adopted in 1988. It says “Signs shall not constitute traffic hazards” and “No signs shall be placed on any private property without consent of the owner thereof” and “All signs … shall be erected and constructed, placed and supported in such a manner so they will not be or become dangerous to the general public or surrounding property.”

Many of the changes proposed go far beyond that common-sense language. The draft commissioners will be asked to approve on Thursday seeks to regulate “size, color, lighting, movement, materials, location, height and condition of all signs within the City …” and encourage “aesthetic quality in the design, location, size and purpose of all signs.”

In other words, business owners already struggling to survive are being asked to spiffy up a little, too.

The draft features 20 pages worth of that kind of language. It even seeks to limit the number of flag poles an individual can display at their house — two, with a maximum of four flags.

Think about that. If the proposal goes through, Clovis residents will be prohibited from flying five flags at the same time, even if those flags represent the United States, the state of New Mexico, POW-MIAs, Clovis High School and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Do it and you can be fined up to $500.

City leaders need to take a step back and get some perspective on what they’re proposing.

If nothing else, commissioners need to spend more time looking into unintended consequences that could result from changing the sign ordinance.

For example, multiple business owners have asked for an economic-impact analysis prior to any commission vote. That seems reasonable. City officials say most signs up today will be “grandfathered in” and won’t have to be removed if the new ordinance is passed. But if a sign blows down, if a business closes, if a new business moves into an existing structure, there will be costs associated with the signs.

City leaders can be applauded for encouraging residents to take pride in Clovis, whether that means picking up trash, cleaning up graffiti or repairing or removing worn out signs. But government mandates cannot eliminate community “blight.” More rules will only add to the problem and send struggling business owners elsewhere.

— David Stevens

Publisher

Author Bio

Do you have a question?
A comment you'd like to see published?
Or maybe a story idea for a future edition?

— Please email the publisher: [email protected]