Moses Lake tables sign ordinance

Candice Boutilier/Columbia Basin Herald<br> Several people came to the Moses Lake City Council meeting in support of their constitutional rights as they pertained to a sign ordinance the council was considering.

by Candice Boutilier<br
| July 31, 2009 9:00 PM

MOSES LAKE — After listening to citizen comments about an ordinance regulating the placement of signs, Moses Lake City Council chose to table the issue Tuesday night.

More than 70 people attended the meeting, many to learn the outcome of the ordinance.

The proposed ordinance amendment prohibits signs, including advertisement and political signs, from being placed on city-owned property and city right-of-way adjacent to city owned property. It would not prohibit signs from being placed on private property and right-of-way adjacent to private property if the private property owner gives permission.

Signs allowable on city property and right-of-way include signs advertising city sponsored events, said City Manager Joe Gavinski.

He explained the amendment is a clarification of the current ordinance.

After complaints about the placement of various signs from citizens and council, city staff was directed to review the ordinance. They learned they misunderstood the ordinance in past years and drafted the amendment to clarify where signs are allowed, he said.

Councilmember Richard Pearce asked staff to address the concern with freedom of speech as it relates to the ordinance.

Gavinski said freedom of speech is not prohibited in public spaces and stationary signs for the event can be posted in the gathering place during the event. He said there is no violation of free speech by restricting political signs from certain areas as long as all signs are prohibited.

Alan Odermann spoke to the council and asked for a showing of hands to see who was at the meeting in support of first amendment rights.

Several audience members and councilmembers raised their hands.

He distributed a list of 144 signatures from citizens who were against the ordinance.

Odermann explained he came to the meeting because he was concerned the ordinance was limiting or removing the first amendment rights from the citizens by placing restrictions on political signs. Odermann said he is worried people are becoming apathetic toward their rights and once they are gone, they are gone forever.

He proceeded to read the first amendment to the city council.

Odermann said a prime example of the first amendment was when the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party formed at Civic Center Park recently. People were publicly forming to share their opinions.

He explained city property is owned by the citizens because citizens paid for it through taxes.

Odermann said he was also concerned the crux of restricting all signs is more of an attempt to get rid of political signs. He said it seems advertisement signs got lumped into the ordinance because it was the only way to remove political signs.

Mayor Ron Covey said he disagreed. He said he dislikes all signs on public property, including advertisements and political signs.

Odermann asked the council to consider designating public areas where people are allowed to place their signs.

Covey said no one was trying to eliminate constitutional rights through the ordinance.

“Most of all of us want to see our constitutional rights maintained,” he said. “I believe in our Constitution. That’s the basis for our country.”

Councilmember Richard Pearce motioned to approve the ordinance and Councilmember Dick Deane seconded.

Pearce said there is no perfect sign ordinance and it is often reviewed several times a year. The ordinance is an attempt at being fair to everyone in an effort to prevent the problems related to placing signs in public space, he said. The signs blow down in the wind or are an obstacle for ground maintenance, he explained.

He placed his political signs on city property when he was running for council because it was perceived as allowable under the current ordinance, Pearce said, answering an audience member.

Councilmember James Liebrecht said he would be voting against the ordinance after reviewing the signatures of those against it. He said the people have spoken and no one was there in favor of the ordinance.

Covey disagreed. He said there are probably 144 people willing to sign a document in favor of the proposed ordinance. He said he was in favor of the ordinance because he dislikes seeing advertisements for alcohol or food and other signs around town. He said he won’t be placing any political signs in public area during his re-election campaign this year. Instead he will donate the money he will save on buying signs to a local organization. Covey said it would be better spent as a donation.

Pearce said if the ordinance is not approved, the current ordinance will remain in effect. He said the current ordinance is the same ordinance but not as clear.

Kay Norby said she was insulted the mayor grouped political signs with other advertisement signs.

Covey said he did not intend to insult her but in order for the ordinance to be fair, all signs had to be considered equally.

Liebrecht asked Pearce to amend his motion for approval to include directing city staff to select areas where any signs could be placed.

Pearce amended his motion and Deane seconded the amendment.

Before a vote was taken, Councilmember Jon Lane motioned to table the issue while they wait for the additional information about what areas could be designated as areas to place signs. Councilmember Brent Reese seconded and council agreed.

Originally published July 16, 2009