"City News" Blues...

This just ticks me off. The City of Great Falls buys from the Tribune a "paid advertising supplement" called "City News. As hard as I tried, I could find nothing in it stating where the money came from to pay for it, how many of our tax dollars the City spent producing it, and what the Tribune's profit on it was.

I went to the City's website and searched for "City News." Two hits came up, and the second one contained the "Contract List: Itemizing contracts not otherwise approved or ratified by City Commission Action." These were apparently ratified on a consent agenda.

The City News contract was listed but, alas, unlike the other contracts it contained no amount. All we really know is that it is administered by Community Development.

So, why do we care? Well, as anyone who reads this weblog this knows, the sign code really stuck in my craw. So, imagine my thoughts when I opened the City News and read the following:

Sign Code Creates Better Image of Great Falls

Great Falls is on the road to creating a more positive image of itself for both residents and visitors. The City's new sign code went into effect on May 5, and John Cameron, the new Sign Code Enforcement Officer, went to work educating the business community about the rules regarding temporary and permanent signs. John has spent many hours on the telephone and in person, soothing the concerns of business owners.

One of the first changes he has overseeing has been the removal of the thousands of paper banners and temporary cardboard signs that littered the landscape of Great Falls. Many of these were torn, blew in the wind and were definite eyesores. As a result of this cleanup, our residents seem to be more aware of the image we want to portray. One citizen was heard to exclaim, "I can't believe how good 10th Avenue South looks!"

While some business owners find the new code constraining, others recognize that a more consistent design for city storefronts will create a better first impression for visitors to Great Falls. The code requires landscaping around the base of new signage, increasing "curb appeal" for the business and welcoming patrons to the site. A visually appealing entrance reflects positively on the business owner and is attractive to consumers.

The sign code discussion has also prompted owners of business or shopping centers to look at their signage and come up with plans that will make businesses more noticeable and more appealing. We can all look forward to a more attractive cityscape for years to come.

This is an absolute outrage. Let's review. The passage of the sign code was highly contentious, and there was significantly more opposition to it than support for it. So what the hell gives our government the right to use our tax dollars to print an editorial telling us all what a great job they did passing a law most of us didn't want?

Isn't that nice? Our Sign Code Enforcement Officer "soothes" our "concerns." Does he pass out puppies too?

While some business people find the new code "constraining," the others "recognize" that those folks at City Hall know what's good for business. All of those businesses who bought signs that are suddenly illegal (short of paying the grandfather tax), can sleep easier now that our City Staff (How many jobs have they created with their own money? Oh yeah, ZERO.) assures them that their "visually appealing entrance reflects positively" on them. I know that I want to make sure City Staff thinks positively of me based upon my sign expenditures.

Isn't it illegal to spend public dollars on political matters? Isn't advocating a position on an issue before government a political matter? You know, I once heard about things called "Newspapers," or a "free press." They're things where groups of people investigate government and draw attention to situations that stink or that might be inappropriate.

It would be nice if we had something like that here. What? You say we do? Oh, right...but our "free press" made money on the City's editorial. Nice.