New Farm Sign Bylaw - WTF? [General]

2009 Aug 8
www.ottawasun.com

I have not seen a rational for this, but I am honestly having a pretty difficult time coming up with one in my head. This sounds to me like completely unwarranted meddling in the affairs of a private business.

Farms will not be allowed to have their own signs?
WTF?
They will have to use a "uniform, city-approved, blue-and-white directional sign"

Please do as I have just done and send email to your councilor about this madness!

Addresses can be found here : www.ottawa.ca

2009 Aug 8
It honestly reminds me of my year in the Soviet Union when you'd see the huge military-looking trucks with "Bread" or "Milk" written on the side in huge, generic, industrial letters. I'm looking for my photo album because I have a few pics I want to put on line to associate with this madness.

2009 Aug 8
There is no denying that the farmers have had a rough season...

BUT there is more to the story than they are reporting.

And get this for hypocracy. Seems Andy from Acorn Creek was on the committee which worked WITH council to write and develop this particular Bylaw. WTF is right.

2009 Aug 8
There is always more than what is reported - hoping you folks will help fill in the blanks here with what you know. Daft - do you have any more details?

If Andy was on the committee, I have to assume he came away from the process pretty upset.

I cannot imagine any farmer actually thinking this is a good idea. What is the rational for it - the article I saw did not say anything about it.

2009 Aug 8
Apparently farmers have had 2-3 years to become "compliant" to this bylaw.

Zym - one reason for this is the placement of the signs on the side of country roads near intersections, obstructing the view for drivers limiting their ability to see oncoming traffic. I know. Sounds pretty lame based on *my* experience driving "around" these signs. One more P.I.A. the farmers have to deal with!

2009 Aug 8
Doesn't matter how long they have had - a stupid bylaw is a stupid bylaw. I'm still having trouble with a rational.

Improper sign placement is not a reason to make them all use the same signs. It is a reason to make a bylaw about sign placement.

I want to find out more about this - it just sounds terrible. Incredibly half-baked.

2009 Aug 9
I, too, would like to understand the rationale for this decision. Leave farmers alone.


2009 Aug 9
Stupid, Stupid bylaw. Wish they would spend more time on other important issues and leave our farmers alone. we need the farmers more than the by law officers.

2009 Aug 9
Perhaps it's to get rid of all the giant ugly signs? They use the standard blue/white directional signs in PEI and it sure saves on the eye sores, and I don't believe their farmers (and other touristy businesses) are going under because of it.

2009 Aug 9
Ok, I am not defending this new "bylaw" in any way... just wanting to clarify a point... as this seems to not come thru in this article (rather poorly written in my mind)... and giving a bit of history / background as well.

The City is not asking the Farmers to change "all" their signage (ie on their Farms), just the stuff that appears at intersections that directs buyers to their farms for produce etc. (so like in the case of Acorn Creek which is a market garden farm... see the big yellow sign in the photo).

The city did this previously with the New Home Sales in Ottawa... there is now a consistent theme to the signage, instead of a mish-mash of things at intersections. Simple, neat, & tidy. And has been well received by the public... particularly with folks in developing areas of the burbs where there were always a huge mass of signs of various sizes at every major intersection.

Actually when it comes to directional signage... Acorn Creek is a good example, because if one drives around the backroads of Kanata or Carp, there is indeed a lot of these big yellow signs pointing out how to get to the farm. The signs are indeed recognizable, but I can see where some would feel they are an eye-sore because there are so many of them (like all backroads in Kanata end up at Acorn Creek).

I'm guessing that the owner of Acorn Creek saw the writing on the wall... and thought seeing as a by-law is most likely going to come down the pipe, and it will afffect his biz that he decided to get in on the groundfloor in the decision making process (smart move IMO).

This city move, is somewhat similar to the one the Province of Ontario undertook several years ago in eliminating a whole mish-mash of signage along Ontario's highways directing people to points of interest like Museums, Historic Sites etc (now we have those blue signs that point out what attractions are available at say the next exit off the 416... I take it Blue is now considered a "directional" colour).

EDIT - Looks like Peter and I were composing at the same time.


2009 Aug 9
OK, that is more clear now - thanks F&T. I actually spent a bit of time searching the City site today for details, because I realised that the article was not very clear. But could not come up with anything.

That does sort of make sense, I guess.

2009 Aug 9
I'm still not able to determine - are they allowed to put their own logo on the wayfinding signs? If not, it still seems sad to me. It should be quite possible to regulate the size and placement of wayfinding signs, without taking away the farm's individuality.

2009 Aug 9
Zym - Found this on the City of Ottawa Website - "Rural Directional Signage Program" - ottawa.ca

As for "logos" will keep looking.

EDIT - Here is the link for the similar Public Announcement when the "Developer Signage" was announced / implemented - www.ottawa.ca

Unfortunately haven't found any photos yet (to verify what happened in regards to logos).

2009 Aug 9
Farms do get their logo on the blue signs. Link within the site F&T posted here:
ottawa.ca

And (useful): "For vertical signs, the farm-based business may be able to have a slide-in section below the panel for messages advising the public they are open/ouvert, or closed/fermé, and/or the produce available for sale."

2009 Aug 9
AMR - Thanks for that link... I've been busy searching the City of Ottawa Site... did find this interesting tidbit that discusses "the whole" signage requirements for all sectors www.ottawa.ca

Talk about excessive verbage... As a resident all I gotta say is too bad these kind of "strict" requirements aren't enforced when it comes to Election Signage.

;-)

2009 Aug 10
What's most interesting is that there is a way around the whole bylaw - get the city to pay for, and put up, the signs.

Seems odd but that's what happened for the Preston BIA - as I remember it up to $8000 for 22 signs in a 20 block radius - approved in late April/early May.

Since the city exempts itself for all provisions of the signs bylaw, the Preston Street signs have extensive branding, custom lettering and are typically larger than the signs farmers are allowed (stroll down Rochester to see them). The signs were originally designed by the Preston BIA - and throughout the public discussion they were going to pay for them but at the last minute a councilor suggested the city pick up the tab. Without that Preston BIA would likely have run afoul of this same bylaw.

You've got to ask yourself why a councilor would do this, and why council would endorse it. Frankly I don't have a good idea but people with more insight into the political process may know the calculation involved.

Simpler souls like myself wonder - Do they like Preston BIA but not farmers? Do they not think the bylaw is actually no good - so will exempt some people/groups? And what does there action say about equity before the law (guess it depends on who you know?)

2009 Aug 10
As for logos, I can't ever recall seeing a logo on a city blue and white sign, and I know that a city sign has to have the city colours and typeface and is as much about branding the city's tourism as it is about marketing for the farm.

The city uses symbols in lieu of a brand specific logo for all city buildings and other tourist attractions, so I highly, highly doubt that the City of Ottawa would allow farms to include their logo.

(On the other hand, farms could/would place a sign a few hundred meters away with their information and branding/marketing)

2009 Aug 10
What's most interesting is that there is a way around the whole bylaw - get the city to pay for, and put up, the signs.

Seems odd but that's what happened for the Preston BIA - as I remember it up to $8000 for 22 signs in a 20 block radius - approved in late April/early May.

Since the city exempts itself for all provisions of the signs bylaw, the Preston Street signs have extensive branding, custom lettering and are typically larger than the signs farmers are allowed (stroll down Rochester to see them). The signs were originally designed by the Preston BIA - and throughout the public discussion they were going to pay for them but at the last minute a councilor suggested the city pick up the tab. Without that Preston BIA would likely have run afoul of this same bylaw.

You've got to ask yourself why a councilor would do this, and why council would endorse it. Frankly I don't have a good idea but people with more insight into the political process may know the calculation involved.

Simpler souls like myself wonder - Do they like Preston BIA but not farmers? Do they not think the bylaw is actually no good - so will exempt some people/groups? And what does there action say about equity before the law (guess it depends on who you know?)

2009 Aug 11
I just wonder why city council keeps approving new bylaws when there are thousands on the books that don't ever get enforced.

2009 Aug 18
The local newspapers report that the original farm signs are allowed on the property of the owner and other signs on alternate sites must be the approved "blue" city ones...as far as I can figure. Apparently they had input from the farmers.