Reject Township sign ordinance!

In our opinion,

We object strongly to the proposed Glen Arbor sign ordinance amendment that has been recommended by the Glen Arbor Township Planning Commission and has support from Township Board members. The ordinance as currently written states that any vehicle “used as an instrument of conveyance in transporting passengers or merchandise by land, water or air,” … (is) “parked on public or private property off-site to the business, and used primarily as a static display for the purpose of advertising a business or directing one to a business” would be regulated.

Try to interpret that one. The amendment, in our view, is a far reaching and unenforceable attempt to target one person/business, entangle us in extended litigation, and step on the First Amendment rights of any business or individual with a sign on an auto or truck — or even a boat anchored — in Glen Arbor. This proposed amendment is taking us way in over our heads, and should not be approved. The only result will be a lawsuit that is indefensible and wasteful of precious township resources.

Commercial trucks and personal vehicles of all sizes and shapes, with signs advertising their businesses, park in Glen Arbor 24 hours a day. Let us pursue this for a minute:

• Would they put a timer on each vehicle or boat with a sign of any kind to find out how long it was parked on any street or dock away from their premises in order to be considered “static?”

• What would be the exact definition of an advertising or directional sign? Would it be on a commercially licensed vehicle with any writing, bumper sticker or whatever? Or would they try to regulate any vehicle — commercial or personal — with an advertising sign, including a personal bumper sticker suggesting the purchase of something?

• What would they do about vendors who must park on a Glen Arbor street for an extended time for construction, repairs, or delivery that is away from their official place of business? How would their “purpose” be imputed? Don’t they, too, intend for someone to come to them for future business?

• Or would it be applied only to commercial vehicles that belong to businesses with addresses in Glen Arbor but happen to be “off-site?” And, if yes, how can they justify this to all the businesses that would be affected in town, let alone the courts, that they wrote a violation to everyone just so they could pursue one business?

• Township guests for whom some say they want to save the street parking often have signs on their vehicles advertising a business, too, and they are far off-site from their businesses. Then what? Don’t the guests/visitors have the signs so that someone, no matter how far away, may want to engage their business someday?

• Would Township officials print and make available passes for certain exemptions, how in any way would it be decided who could and who couldn’t have one, and would there be extra township staff to accept applications/distribute in all the hours necessary?

• If we understand correctly, the Zoning Administrator would be charged with making the decisions on issuing violations, and defend the tickets in court. Are we going to pay him to patrol the streets (and docks?) every day to look out for the offenders of this egregious ordinance since it would have to be applied equally and not just to the one that is being target.

Need we go on? No “legislative sausagemaking” can fix a vehicle sign ordinance that is flawed in its fundamental premise. Please, please Township officials, think more clearly about the ramifications, ethics, and costs involved.

We know Township Supervisor John Soderholm to be a reasonable and quite visionary man. But we know, too, that there are those in our township who seek to lead something that is not in keeping with our community. We urge Mr. Soderholm to take the leadership to temper this pursuit and step away from the vendetta.

Best regards,
Patricia and Larry Widmayer
Glen Arbor Bed & Breakfast and Cottages