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.

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.

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.

-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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.