Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P.
I heard a discussion today about "sandwich board" signs which illustrates the matter quite well - businesses who use such signs to promote today's special or whatever, and the usual heavy hand of HRM trying to ban them based upon some alleged threat to public safety or esthetics. Ridiculous.
|
It's funny you say that; because I know many planners that would want them removed and hate them.
I have a different view, mainly that they make the streetscape more attractive and feel comfortable. The way you keep people safe from them is either make them go up next to the curb edge (where the planters, benches and other street furniture is) or you make them stay against the building. In between is begging for an accident - but I'm getting away from the thread.
For me, as a planner, I've never been of the belief that to practice my field I should tell anyone or have the power to direct anyone to live in a certain way. I can try to persuade you, but that's as far as it goes. I do however feel that when you make a choice to live in a suburban style development, which is a part of a sprawling city (any city), you should be responsible to pay more as it costs more to service your area or any other suburban community for typical services because the land area is bigger, but the population is less. In contrast, I think the taxes in the inner city should be the lowest because you have a far more compact form, with better centralized services.
That's why I struggle with this project because I don't see how even people in the suburbs are going to benefit from it. Yes, for a small period of time the traffic may become better flowing...but then it will just clog up again. So then what? It just seems to me that this project is just another finger in the hole of a damn that's leaking...it's solving one small problem, but not the big issue.
I had to laugh when you said proliteriate - I kept thinking about that comedy sketch, just can't think of it right now...
Threaded Mode