Monday, June 9, 2008

Let's put a sign pointing to the landfill

I heartily agree with Ari Herzog's comment on the A-Frame story from the June 7 Daily News.


I'm on your side, Dick. If streets lacked A-frames for the reason they are cluttered or "not pretty," then we might as well remove the al-fresco sidewalk and street dining. After all, if a business receives a patron from a sign and the sign is then removed, why would the business want to stay in town?


That's Dick Monahan he's agreeing with. It's good to see some reasoned, well thought out comments on the DN website, for once!


Plus, I've seen some really unattractive people sitting at those sidewalk tables. Ewwww, it put me right off downtown.


Let's get real here, and, as Ari said somewhere else (sorry, Ari, let me know where), let's not waste any more time/money on this issue, unless it's to figure out why we're letting 'special interests' dictate how the downtown looks.


We've got more important stuff to worry about, like getting Newburyport's image back to a pretty waterside city from what it's becoming - a city known for a controversial landfill site.

15 comments:

Ari Herzog said...

We've got more important stuff to worry about, like getting Newburyport's image back to a pretty waterside city from what it's becoming - a city known for a controversial landfill site.

I've recently spoken with many people who don't live in Newburyport and only know what they read in the Globe, Herald, or hear from their colleagues.

The consensus is nobody knows about Crow Lane or its issues. Some people know about Karp and his development plans. Everyone knows that the urban renewal of the downtown is much better now than 40 years ago.

Gillian Swart said...

Really? I've heard the complete opposite, which is why I wrote that.

I think there's been more in the Globe (don't read the Herald) about the landfill than about Karp.

I knew about the landfill before I moved here. And the plovers.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I have to disagree on the A-frame signs - I think that if you want to advertize on State St you should rent a storefront there.

I believe that street dining has to be adjacent to the business - the same regulation that applies to A-frame signs.

Gillian Swart said...

So, bubba, what you're saying is "to hell with all those businesses on side streets that no one can see just casually walking by?"

I never knew Ballotin chocolates was there until I saw their board advertising drinks and such, that abuts the Green St. parking lot. And I live here.

What about the sign for PI Coffee Roasters, that at least used to be at the corner of Merrimac and the NRA lot? Who would ever know they were down there, if not for a sign?

You can't even see the place from The Black Cow.

If that sign is still there (and the one for Newburyport Lighting), and I'm going to check ASAP, then the Lagasses are talking out of both sides of their mouthes.

Ari Herzog said...

@Gillian - If you are referring to the Globe North circulation geography, then, sure, its readers would know of Crow Lane. But I refer to people in metro Boston.

@Bubba - What's your take on political campaign signs? If the purpose of a campaign sign is to advertise a person running for an elected office at a location that the person neither lives nor works at, then your logic to remove A-frames should also apply to campaign signs, no?

Anonymous said...

Oh, were they unaware that they were renting space on a side street ? Maybe that's why the rent was cheaper ???

Gillian Swart said...

Ari, Oh, good point. I'm not sure; I just have heard people say that friends from afar say they know of the landfill and it's becoming what they associate with Newburyport.

Gillian Swart said...

Bubba,

Oh, I thought it was the city's business to 'assist' as much as possible ALL businesses in the city, not just the ones on the main drags. Why then even bother to zone the side streets as "commercial?" To attract businesses that will ultimately fail? How does that help anyone?

Maybe there were no storefronts available on State St. when Licorice & Sloe started up. Maybe they are a small operation and couldn't afford the rent on State St.

Somebody has to go on the side streets and there's no reason to set them up for failure with unduly restrictive regulations.

It's not as if there are hundreds of A-frame signs dotting the downtown landscape. Offhand, I can think of only 3, that I've noticed.

Plus, I like it there (Licorice & Sloe), and I think it was a great addition to the city. I think it fits in right where it is, as does Stella's.

Ari Herzog said...

There are more than 3, Gillian. I can think of Licorice & Sloe, Praline's, Ballotin, Life is Good, Richdale's even.

Gillian Swart said...

Ari, I meant ones that are not right outside the business.

And Ballotin's might qualify under that criteria since the sign is only feet away from their door. In fact, the one for Praline's is pretty close to their door as well.

They let that sporting clothes place next to Praline's put out racks of clothes and that place on Pleasant St. (across from the Post Office) puts out racks of clothes on the sidewalk as well. As does Richdale, of course.

My ex-boss hated that the view from his corner office on State St. included those tables and racks of clothing outside the Richdale. He started keeping the blinds closed on that one window ...

Anonymous said...

Ari,

Surely you're not equating private businesses with public sector candidates ??

I guess we should let the Grog set up outdoor tables on Inn St then ?? And let Jabberwocky place A-Frame signs in Market Sq ?

Gillian Swart said...

No to the Grog on tables, yes to Jabberwocky, if they want one.

The only reason I think Oregano's wanted outside seating is because the inside space is so small. Mr. Elias made the decision to put his business there, knowing how small the space was. Are you going to judge his business decision as well?

I think Grand Trunk should have outside tables - it goes with the general French ambience of the place.

Let everyone have tables! And signs! And racks of clothing!

I know, I'm not Ari.

Anonymous said...

I see, so you want to be "the decider".

Maybe with Mr Elias being short on space, he should set up some tables on the boardwalk too.

And of course, Michael's, The Black Cow, and Ten Center will get A-Frames in Market Sq....

Gillian Swart said...

What do you mean, "want to be?" I AM "the decider." On here, at least!

OK, how about a variation on your property tax exemption: if your business yields less than $X you get an A-frame sign. For a fee. If you can prove it helps your business. And you have to fill out reams of paperwork.

I really don't care anymore! I think the ones we have are fine, no one else seems to want one, and I'd go after Richdale for unsightliness before I'd go after anyone for an A-frame sign.

But I don't really want to "go after" anyone. I like it OK the way it is. Or could make it like a liquor license - only 2 per block, first-come, first-served, or something, none on Market Sq.

There are all kinds of reasonable solutions!

Anonymous said...

it isn't the city's responsibility to promote someone's private business, nor is it their responsibility to determine if a store is unsightly or not.