Natchez aldermen this week finally cleared up what they meant by calling for a moratorium on enforcement of the city’s sign ordinance &045; and admitted it was a poor choice of words.

But they still want to make changes to the document &045; which was already revised in 2001 &045; and we still have problems with their plans.

First, we’re confused by the process they want to take. Instead of initially giving the task to the city planner &045; the person hired for the job, the person who has a degree in this work &045; the aldermen plan to make their recommendations and have the city planner &uot;review&uot; them.

Doesn’t that seem that a little backwards? The city planner and planning commission should have input from the outset as well; they are better versed in the hows and whys of the ordinance.

We’re also still unclear what problems the board has with the ordinance. Aldermen say they don’t want to alter the regulations for the historic district, which is good. But they want to &uot;relax&uot; the rules for signage on the bypasses and outlying areas. Tasteful design and planning is a must for the entire city, not just the historic district, and we need to ensure all areas remain uncluttered and attractive.

Furthermore, at a study session Monday &045; an unannounced meeting which many of the aldermen came unprepared for &045; they repeated the statement that a prominent business owner had met with them and asked for changes.

Does that mean anyone with money can influence our elected officials? What about the small business owners who have been complying with the rules all along? That doesn’t sound business friendly; it sounds like kowtowing to special interests.

We have a sign ordinance for a reason; it was not written nor adopted haphazardly. As Planning Commission member Karen Stubbs so logically pointed out, aldermen need to read and understand the document so that they can help explain it and defend it.

We understand that aldermen don’t want to trash the sign ordinance completely, and we’re glad they cleared up the confusion over the so-called moratorium. But we disagree with their method and reasoning now for making changes to an ordinance that has kept Natchez forward-thinking and forward-looking for 10 years.