Taxi’s rooftop ads remain unlawful
At Tuesday night’s City Council meeting, Alderman Bobby Ferrell proposed an amendment to Fayetteville’s sign ordinance that would allow taxicabs to have advertisements on their roofs. To be more specific, Northwest Arkansas Taxi, a cab company currently operating in Rogers, Bentonville and Springdale, wanted to expand to Fayetteville, but the ads affixed to the top of their cabs are unlawful in the city.
In a 7-1 vote, the amendment was denied, as council members seemed intent on keeping the sign ordinance intact.
Alderman Robert Rhoads said although he wanted to help businesses that serve the public, the sign ordinance makes Fayetteville different.
“It’s a distinction that I think we need to preserve,” Rhoads said.
“I too am very proud of our sign ordinance,” Alderman Shirley Lucas said. “I think it makes Fayetteville unique.”
City Attorney Kit Williams advised the council that exemptions to the ordinance might make it more susceptible to lawsuits.
“It’s stronger the fewer exemptions we allow,” Williams said.
Alderman Bobby Ferrell argued that the council was looking for reasons to vote against the amendment as opposed to trying to support it, and suggested that allowing the cab company to do business in Fayetteville might assuage drunk-driving instances.
“It seems rather inconsistent…that we would not allow this business to bring his taxicabs down here to Dickson Street…where we have someone who needs a ride for fear that we’re going to have a California or some other state law firm come in here and try and sue us over saving people,” Ferrell said.
Fayetteville has a stringent and detailed sign ordinance that was passed back in 1972. The ordinance prohibits off-site signs, and electronic signs that flash or blink. It sets regulations for the height and width of signage and prohibits posting signs on utility poles and trees.
The ordinance has been contested in court eight times. In 2002, a Fayetteville business owner filed a $10 million lawsuit against the city over enforcement of the regulation. The business had a flashing sign in its window that displayed messages such as “Choose Life,” “God Listens” and “Recall-Coody.com.” In 2006, the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard the suit, and upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance.
It has been argued that Fayetteville’s sign ordinance detracts business. The Cracker Barrel, for example, was all set to come to Fayetteville, but their sign was too big according to the ordinance. So, the restaurant was allowed out of its contract and instead, set up shop in Springdale. This of course led to the Flyer’s favorite quote of the mayoral debate last fall.
This sign ordinance gets a lot of play in our city. If you’ll remember, just a couple of weeks ago, Lowlife Tattoo was granted a permit by the council to continue to operate on Archibald Yell. It was a sign violation that originally kick-started City staff’s attention on the tattoo parlor. And, it wasn’t until after investigating for the signage issue that the Planning Commission discovered the owner had not obtained the correct business permit.
So what do you think? Are you in favor of Fayetteville’s sign ordinance? Think it detracts business? Anybody distressed about driving to Springdale to patron the Cracker Barrel?
Comments
The Fayetteville Flyer doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
Total Bastard
March 6, 2009
100% IN FAVOR OF IT.
On most things, I’m a live and let live kind of guy.
One of the reasons Springdale Springdales is because driving through it is like driving through a giant flea market. I can’t find anything because everything has a dozen signs and its just sensory overload.
In fact, I wish our sign code was stricter and would find a way to put an expiration date on most of the signs cluttering up College Avenue and MLK and eventually put all those suckers on the ground, monument style.
It protects the few views of mountains and trees we have left in this city, so I am all for it.
On taxis it might seem a little bit stringent, but whatever. Frick a taxi. Ride a bike.
a. brown
March 6, 2009
I’m for it. I think TB’s got it on the comparison to Springdale. I am glad we don’t have an ugly building with the word “GUNS” 10 feet high across the side on our main thoroughfare.
Beebs
March 6, 2009
This kind of thing might fly in Liberty City but not Fayetteville……not Fayetteville.
George
March 6, 2009
Enforce it! The sign ordinance goes hand in hand with our tree ordinance. It is sooo refreshing to drive around Fayetteville and see trees instead of signs. And I don’t buy the argument that it hurts business. How many people are doing business in Fay (shopping or otherwise) simply because of the beauty and atmosphere of the town. Maybe some of them are even doing it subconsciously. You can’t measure that.
I think Alderman Ferrell should be careful taking this sort of stance. Remember the shakeup after the Kohl’s debacle?
Screw Cracker Barrel! Go eat at one of our many locally owned breakfast options. Better food…same price…and more of the money stays in the Fayetteville economy. (Sami Sutton. Hah! It’s amazing she didn’t win.)
Matthew Petty
March 6, 2009
I’m glad to see the Flyer readers think we made the right decision. I’ve had a few phone calls asking me why I voted against it…
Mary, great article – loads more engaging than newspaper journalism. Keep it up!
Scott Stapp of Creed
March 6, 2009
Ferrell’s a boob. Any town worth its salt has a sign ordinance. I tip my hat to the hard working Planning and Code Enforcement Divisions who deal with enforcing this ordinance every day.
Me
March 6, 2009
I agree with TB on this one. My default philosophy on this kind of thing is to err on the side of freedom for the business owners, but the city has a right to govern its appearance and the sign ordinance has done wonders with that. I never thought of restricting signage until I moved to Fayetteville and realized what a difference it makes.
Jon Schleuss
March 6, 2009
Grooves, I totally dig less signage. Maybe there should be more people signs. At least it creates jobs.
The Leprechaun
March 6, 2009
I’m all for our sign ordinance and I agree that having it place gives Fayetteville an atmosphere that offsets any businesses that would look elsewhere over some sign rules.
I also suspect that Cracker Barrel had other reasons to not wanna set up shop in Fayetteville, but the sign issue was likely the easiest thing their lawyers could find as a reason to get out of their contract. These things are rarely as simple as something like that, so it seems silly to hold that up as a reason the ordinance hurts the city.
Johnathan
March 6, 2009
I’m all for the sign ordinance. I think it makes a huge difference in our appearance.
On a side not though, I saw an Ozark Regional Transit bus the other day covered in a vinyl sign for Cherokee Casino. The whole bus was a billboard! How is that legal, but a little sign on top isn’t?
Mary Robbins
March 6, 2009
Good point, Jonathan. In 2004, the City Council made an exemption to allow some ads on taxicabs and buses primarily to help Ozark Regional Transit’s financial needs.
Gerry
March 6, 2009
Total Bastard, you are so full of s***. You are a ‘live and let live’ kind of guy, but back a law that prevents the ads on top of taxi cabs preventing taxi cabs from serving our area? Give me a freaking break.
The guy that said they were looking for reasons to vote against it was spot on. While there is a certain validity to not approving exceptions, the law was written way too stringently. The obvious fix except for the virulently anti-business is to modify the law (not grant exceptions) so as to allow the modest type of advertisements such as would be in question with the cabbies.
Instead, we get the same old crap about trying to maintain the tenor of a town that is literally decaying from a lack of businesses to revitalize all of the empty buildings. Not that the cab company would fix that- it would just make life easier for people here and take drunk drivers off the roads. That’s all.
Gerry
March 6, 2009
a. brown said “I am glad we don’t have an ugly building with the word “GUNS” 10 feet high across the side on our main thoroughfare.”
I say– do you honestly believe the only choices are ugly buildings with the word GUNS 10 feet high and banning cabs that have modest ads on the top of their roofs?
David Franks
March 6, 2009
I posted similarly at aubunique:
Somebody observed– correctly– that taxi-top signs are a potential distraction to drivers. This would be particularly true of animated ads, which are the new thing in taxi-top advertising. Further, standing ads make it harder to see around a vehicle, making a sedan approximately as obstructive as a minivan.
As an alternative, how about providing advertising for the captive audience inside the taxi: the passenger? Directed at the taxi-using demographic, it could be very effective, and useful.
Total Bastard
March 7, 2009
Gerry:
For the most part, yeah, I am a live and let live guy.
As for living and let live, what does allowing more signs on the roofs of taxis bring to Fayetteville? How is it different from the signs that are prohibited already in Fayetteville? It is no different at all.
They bring the same thing that big tall signs do. More unneccessary clutter.
I may be full of sh**, but you are hysterical.
EXPLAIN, ANDROGYNOUSLY NAMED KNOW IT ALL, exactly how prohibiting signs on top of taxis “prevents them from serving our area”?
It may diminish their revenue, the same way outlawing billboards in Washington County on I-540 diminishes the potential revenue of property owners along the highway.
It doesn’t prevent them from serving our area. It only makes them make a choice. It does what it does. Prevents them from advertising unrelated businesses in our town and turning their cars into moving billboards.
And thats fine with me.
If you don’t like it, move to Springdale.
They love signs, glorious signs, everywhere.
We don’t.
Their town sucks.
Ours don’t.
Matthew Petty
March 7, 2009
Johnathon asked about ORT advertising.
None of the advertising on the ORT buses is forward-facing. If you watch the Council meeting, I explained that I may be willing to support amending the ordinance to allow rear-facing advertisements, but I was concerned about the distraction factor with oncoming traffic.
I didn’t think the vision obstruction of roof-top ads was much of a concern unless we’re going to ban Hummers and the like, in the interest of consistency.
Matthew Petty
March 7, 2009
Can I spell anyone’s name right? Aaargh. (Sorry.)
yrfuneralmytrial
March 7, 2009
Rooftop ads upon moving taxis would surely ruin this city. I’d have to move to Canada. I’m already upset enough by colorful banners on Dickson, locals with company logos on their vehicles (Flying Burrito, Noodles and a gazillion others). Everyone I turn, there’s distractive signage. Seeing how I’m a complete idiot, it’s only a matter of time before I crash into someone. Thank you wise ones for seeing the inherent evil that is “rooftop ads”.
David Franks
March 7, 2009
You’re more than welcome.
Total Bastard
March 7, 2009
No, they wouldn’t ruin the city. But it would be easy to make a slippery slope argument since Fayetteville’s current sign code has been challenged several times in lawsuits. This is part of the “Live” half of “Live and Let Live. I prefer to live in a city known for its trees rather than its resemblance to a truck stop.
The only question one must ask: Is the loosened interpretation worth the risk of invalidating other sign ordinances? Nope. The city gains nothing, yet risks losing a lot.
Springdale, the most ‘BUSINESS FRIENDLY’ chock-full-o-signs city in NWA, has the second highest population, and the third highest sales tax collections as of February 2008. I didn’t adjust it for the rates, but still…
Not great results.
Fayetteville, with its “crazy” sign laws, and tree huggers, collects 170% of what Springdale collects.
Not too shabby.
I can’t speak for everyone on the issue, as I am sure there are people out there who moved to Springdale to be closer to Cracker Barrel after it was run oft by Fayetteville’s sign code.
Yep, they moved north, breathed the chicken-feed air, just to be closer to buttermilk biscuits, grits and faux nostalgia. Kountry with a “K”. What? No? Nobody moved to Springdale over Cracker Barrel?
My bad.
Hippies piss me off a lot, but on the balance, they make pretty good neighbors.
Johnathan
March 7, 2009
Matthew, I’m confused now. Is this an uglying up Fayetteville issue or a safety for oncoming traffic issue? Would it be acceptable for the taxis to cover themselves in wraps like ORT?
yrfuneralmytrial
March 7, 2009
Not buying for a second that ads upon cabs would endanger our sign code or gateway us into resembling Springdale. Nor do I subscribe to the “threat to safety” idea. Our sign code is awesome for it’s intended purpose. I don’t use cabs locally so personally, I could care less. I just think more common sense could be applied here. Reducing this to a Fayetteville vs. Springdale, we’re great…they’re hideous arguement is very exaggerated in my opinion. Ads on cabs…sorry, but I don’t see much difference in this and huge decals adorning the doors of many vehicles, lighted signs on pizza delivery cars, the Schwan’s ice cream man etc…
David Franks
March 7, 2009
Some common sense, then:
If Fayetteville were like New York City, where the taxi fleet is a widely-used part of the transit system, it might make some sense to have large cab company ads on top of cabs to advertise their presence and make them easier to hail. Since people in Fayetteville call for cabs, there is no need for them to have advertising signs on them. If the purpose is to advertise other businesses, then I’ll object on the grounds that I don’t acquire goods or services based on advertising. Since there is no likelihood that I would buy something based on an ad on top of a cab, I see no point in being subjected to such ads.
It is generally the case that vehicles with advertising on them are touting the business that owns the vehicle. As long as those ads are static and on the body of the vehicle, I can’t object to them. Once advertising is animated (the new trend in automotive advertising), brightly illuminated, or extends the envelope of the vehicle, it becomes a danger to traffic.
I would prefer that ORT not have to whore for money, but that’s the way it is. I acknowledge the social value of buses; I’ll also note that they are large enough to command attention and care, whether covered with ads or not.
If the cab companies need ad revenue from outside sources, then I suggest they put DVD players inside with advertising tracks based on the rider’s destination– grocery, mall, pharmacy, and so on, with additional ads interspersed.
We are already inundated with information and stimuli. No good is served by further diluting our attention with more advertising.
yrfuneralmytrial
March 8, 2009
DF: your solution for the cab company sounds like a bad consolation prize. “Hey guys, pony up for a multi-media system in each car and try to sell that drunk dude something”. Mind you, it’s not really about the taxi ads for me. I get tired of seeing business owners (or prospective business owners) having to get on bended knee while council members offer up hollow suggestions. I’m reminded of the Divinity hotel project. “We love the idea and desperately need a hotel but we just don’t want it right there. Can you put it on the south side of town?” Really? The guy spends 5 million + and is zoned correctly and everyone wants to dictate what it’s called, where it’s located etc… Or recently, the “Lowlife” tattoo guy. Because Adella couldn’t stomach the word “lowlife”, this guy was twiddling his thumbs and losing money daily.
David Franks
March 8, 2009
DVD players would be no more expensive than rooftop signage– probably quite a bit less. The businesses buying the ads would provide the digital content. DVD editing/burning software isn’t expensive, and content could be updated quickly.
For example, taking a fare to Dillon’s: Run the latest circular, newspaper ad or commercial. Add a couple of branded recipe ideas. Nice weather? Add a spot about some of the parks, suggesting a picnic.
Your drunk dude? Restaurant ads featuring good solid breakfast fare. Pharmacy ads for painkillers and Vitamin C. Convenience store ads for carbs and orange juice. (Might even get additional time and miles for side trip.) Church ads, to bring on a remorse.
Targeted advertising generates more revenue than broadly cast advertising, so this wouldn’t necessarily be a consolation prize.
The sign law was in place before the taxi company came to town. They didn’t have to go on bended knee to the council, but they wanted to do something outside the sign ordinance.
Never minding the hinkiness of the Divinity approval, and the boneheaded location, it looks like Fayetteville dodged another Renaissance. Perhaps Mr. Barber shouldn’t have paid so much for that land.
I agree about Lowlife Tattoo– that whole flap was just dumb.
unicorn
March 9, 2009
really, this is what our sign ordinance people want to spend time on?
I’m all for regulation that keeps our city beautiful, but spending time and effort to keep signage off of cabs (where it’s not really hurting the landscape) while QC auto sales is welcome to keep their zebra striped rooftop seems like the cc needs to reexamine it’s priorities.
David Franks
March 9, 2009
Any set of ordinances requires time and effort for oversight; I expect that even Springdale’s lenient sign ordinance is up for consideration fairly regularly as people try to get around it.
If we couldn’t have “ugly” buildings, nothing would get built. A building must first be functional and durable. If it can serve as its own sign, so much the better.
yrfuneralmytrial
March 9, 2009
Zebra stripes are the least of QC Auto’s worries. Have a look behind it sometime. Mystery barrels of nastiness that stormwater runoff saturates everytime it rains. Mmmm mmmm good.
Total Bastard
March 9, 2009
Lighted signs (or scrolling in the future) on the top of cabs are way different than a car wrap. Car wraps don’t light up. They don’t emit light into the city. They aren’t distracting at night. They aren’t changed constantly, and generally they only advertise for the people who own the vehicles themselves.
Yeah, its minor, but whats the difference between a lighted cab advert on top of a moving vehicle, and that same sign placed on the ground in a high profile location? There’s not much difference in my opinion.
I just don’t like the precedent it sets with signage. I don’t like the enforcement it would require. Permitting, size verification, etc etc.
If there were big benefits to considering it, the city should. There aren’t any benefits to anybody but the cab company.
Are people really upset because we will have less advertising in our lives as a result of this decision? Weird.
fayettvillan
March 10, 2009
To the first commenter, I saw a guy on a bike get a DWI last weekend, and since I imagine a lot of folks only take cabs when they’ve been drinking, I don’t think that is very solid advice. Fayetteville made it’s bed long ago on this issue, and this seems a bit extreme, as it takes away from the margins the struggling cab companies operate in. At the point that a pizza guy can have a sign on top of his car, your typical, “we don’t want to become Springdale” argument flies out the window, because at the end of the day, a sign is a sign is a sign. I know, I know, they are different….lol.
Butt Bomb
March 10, 2009
This thread is comical and really interesting to see where the general public chooses to fight their battles when it comes to preserving our Fayetteville womb. Since we are all spooging our opinions anyway, hey what the hell:
Cabs will always be few and far between in Fayetteville due to the structure of the town and also because most people own their own vehicles. I mean, we are still in Arkansas; what’s a man without his ride, ya know? With that being said, how could cab signage be an issue when they would be just as frequent of an eyesore as a pizza delivery vehicle? And who knows, maybe one of those cabs will host signage endorsing one of our very own local businesses. Hey, wouldn’t that be novel? But, probably not. Having your local business on a cab is totally un-hip.
If a few people are able to get some jobs by driving some other people around in a yellow car with a sign on it who might not otherwise be able to get to a specific location because they are either a. too old, b. drunk, c. car-less, or d. lost, well I’m all for it. I’ve been riding my bike in Fayetteville for as long as I can remember and I was born here and I’ll be damned if I am going to get run over because I was distracted by a cab sign.
David Franks
March 10, 2009
But you might get run over if somebody else is distracted by a cab sign.
yrfuneralmytrial
March 10, 2009
“But you might get run over if somebody else is distracted by a cab sign.”
-Or a stoner completely mesmerized by the Eureka Pizza sign. Or an ice cream lover daydreaming of his childhood summers whilst staring at the passing ice cream truck. My point being that there are many distractions out there. Best you take a cab.
Total Bastard
March 10, 2009
Whats the point?
Fayetteville has always had taxis. It will continue to have taxis. This sign ordinance won’t change that. Like I said, are you really going to miss out by not having advertising whizzing past you at 35mph on College Avenue?
Anybody who wants to argue slippery-slope style about the erosion of the rights of cabbies can speak to the slippery slope of loosening sign restrictions.
The fewer, smaller signs cluttering up the city, the better.
Until someone demonstrates that its had a negative economic impact on Fayetteville, I’ll not change my mind.
Possible
March 11, 2009
This story has completely made me change the way I think about Fayetteville.
It’s not like the are large signs. They are no more distracting or obnoxious than a large window sticker on a pickup. Besides it’s not like College is the most visually appealing street in the world either. It’s cluttered on it’s own. What’s a few more signs?!
It’s not so much the law that’s annoying, but the reasoning the members gave. Forbidding roof top signs doesn’t make your town unique. If you think it makes you unique then you really need to look up the definition of the word.
Total Bastard
March 11, 2009
College Ave isn’t appealing because of the clutter.
As older businesses are replaced by new ones, its gradually getting better as far as clutter goes, just like 6th/MLK.
The point is to move in the right direction with regard to signs. Its not about being “unique” as much as it is making decisions that are consistent regarding signage, and moving in a direction of less clutter. Good? Yes.
Having a signage free-for-all doesn’t make a town unique, either. It does make a town ugly, though.
Trackbacks