Ordinance to blame for sign spat

By Kevin Cooper (Contact) | The Natchez Democrat

Published Sunday, August 9, 2009

Stop the presses! Adams County Sheriff candidate Cliff Cox put up billboards all over town!

Now some of his opponents’ supporters are seeking to skin him for what they call a dastardly deed.

But before they turn their gut hooks on Cox, maybe they should start by aiming at the real subject of the confusion — city hall.

The City of Natchez has received much criticism through the years over its complicated, Swiss-cheese-like sign ordinance.

You’ll likely recall a stalemate of sorts a few months back when Bad Boy Buggies attempted to renovate an existing sign on property that was in disrepair.

Much consternation ensued. Ultimately some logic prevailed and the new sign at the manufacturing facility on U.S. 61 South is massively more attractive than the shell of a sign that stood proudly there for years before.

The sign ordinance is confusing and can be infuriating for businesses, but imagine if your job is the guy who must attempt to enforce the thing — the city planner.

A paper copy of the sign ordinance provided by the city planner’s office is 34 pages long and can read in places like a legal textbook.

The dispute over Cox’s billboards relates to a couple of issues contained in the sign ordinance.

Like any good legal document, the sign ordinance includes a list of “definitions” near the beginning to help the reader outline what the original intent of each descriptor that follows actually means.

Under the “definitions” heading, “billboard” definition is referred to as a “standard outdoor advertising structure, off premises poster panel and/or billboard.”

The definition explains what is considered a billboard and contains the first confusing bit of information regarding the political billboards: “Real estate and political signs are excluded from this definition.”

My interpretation is that the line is simply meant to distinguish a true billboard from a big sign a candidate may erect on their own and say, “It’s a billboard, not a political sign.”

In that case, even a billboard with a political message would fall under the “political” rules and regulations, not the billboard ones.

Political signs are defined separately: “Sign, political means a temporary sign advocating or opposing any political proposition or candidate for public office.”

Further in the ordinance, Section 86-35, paragraph 12 details specifics of political sign rules. The law says the signs should be no more than eight square feet and not displayed for more than 60 days before the election.

Both of those restrictions would seem to show Cox’s opponents are correct and that the billboards are in violation of the ordinance, but the city will certainly not push the issue. The issue should be a consistent application of what political candidates can and cannot do with public signs.

If you read the law, many of the city’s billboards — even non-political ones — should have been removed in 2004, yet no one will touch them for fear that the land owners who receive “rent” for the billboards will be upset.

The city should decide on the correct interpretation of the law and create a simple system for clearly explaining the political sign rules to avoid all of the confusion for years to come.

Doing that would help us all stop quibbling over sign laws and get focused on who is best qualified to be the next sheriff.

Kevin Cooper is publisher of The Natchez Democrat. He can be reached at 601-445-3539 or kevin.cooper@natchezdemocrat.com.