GILROY—The Gilroy business community’s leader is hoping for a compromise on the city’s law governing advertising signs and banners, in light of the recent denial of a request to open up communication lines with city staff.
The city council passed the law, a sweeping reform and scaling back of what’s permitted, in March 2014 in a move to “clean up the city,” as Mayor Don Gage put it.
“We’re not at odds with (the city council’s) vision. In fact we support it,” Gilroy Chamber CEO Mark Turner said Wednesday, of the council’s expressed desire to tidy up signage citywide. “We just want a compromise—to turn it into a win-win situation for everyone.”
Last month, Turner asked the council for approval to talk with city staff and hammer out a revision to the ordinance that establishes time constraints on how long banners can be on display, and prohibits putting another up for months.
That aspect of the law, he said, is creating hardships for Gilroy businesses. In some cases, restrictions on banner advertising have led to a 15 percent drop in potential sales, according to Turner.
But with a 4-3 vote last month, the council majority snubbed hopes of more talks to remedy the situation.
“I still have hope we’ll be able to, over time, at least convince them that allowing a conversation to occur will be beneficial,” Turner said. “We want the business community to have the greatest advantage it can have without creating the sort of blight the council is worried about.”
Businesses can only fly one banner in any 45-day period and must wait another 90 days before another can be erected, under the city’s current ordinance.
It’s a “tough deal,” Turner said.
Council Member Cat Tucker, who supported the chamber request, said a First Street business owner explained the banner restrictions would hurt the ability to generate revenue during summer sales.
“The 90-day period in between each event just doesn’t work in the summer. You can have something up for Memorial Day but you can’t do anything for Fourth of July,” Tucker said, supporting Turner’s request.
Others argue that banners, when not properly maintained, can hinder business citywide.
Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz, who voted against opening talks between the chamber and city staff along with Gage and Council Members Terri Aulman and Perry Woodward, said he’s noticed temporary banners left out permanently in the past.
“That’s not the image we want to portray,” he said.
When the council majority rejected the idea of further talks, it said that all remedies have been explored over the past two years and enough time has been spent on the issue. Those who supported Turner’s request at City Hall are still adamant the law should be reconsidered.
“We have to be respectful of businesses and some of the impacts they’re feeling,” said Council Member Roland Velasco, who supported Turner’s request. “I want to work with businesses just like I would with any citizen who came into City Hall.”
“The council in a 4-3 vote sent a very clear message to the business community that they weren’t interested in helping out some of these businesses that are being affected by the current sign ordinance,” he added.
In the meantime, Turner remains optimistic. He said he’s hopeful the council will see the issue from the perspective of business owners.
“They (the council) don’t want these long, drawn-out conversations that are going to eat up staff time and money. Neither do we,” Turner added. “We’re hoping and believing that at some point we might get someone to say ‘a conversation won’t be a bad thing.’”
