THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, March 18, 1995 TAG: 9503180014
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Medium: 58 lines
Regarding ``No commercials, please'' (editorial, March 14):
The Norfolk zoning ordinance in Chapter 16.3 clearly defines a message center as an electronic changeable copy sign, and also clearly defines a billboard as an outdoor advertising sign.
Moreover, this section also quotes that an outdoor advertising sign shall not include electronic changeable copy signs. These facts prove to me that the people who call our message center a billboard are either biased or really don't know what they are talking about.
Our message center is designed to blend in with downtown surroundings and to offer a service to local charities, businesses, citizens and our visitors. Welcome to Norfolk, Virginia, will be displayed permanently across the top of the message center.
If this proposal had not been a sound business idea, Norfolk would have rejected our project several years ago.
It has been said that we are trying to influence Norfolk to let us use public property for personal financial gain. All businesses within downtown Norfolk are for personal financial gain. utilize city-owned property that they bought or leased.
Moreover, as Bill Minor, assistant director of planning and zoning for the city of Norfolk, stated at the Planning Commission hearing on Feb. 23, ``The standards would include that the public-service message board may be installed only on land owned or controlled by the city or agency thereof, subject to an appropriate lease or contract agreeable to the city attorney.''
There have also been concerns about the types of messages or words displayed the message center. This issue has been addressed with Norfolk by including Samuel Rogers the city's new marketing director to act as a liaison and to censor the type of messages and promotions to be displayed on the message center, thus eliminating concerns about the content and tastefulness of each message.
Your editorial stated that the Planning Commission unanimously said no to the proposal. However, we feel that Bill Minor misled the Planning Commission when he described our message center's dimensions and noted that it would have two faces. His specificity illustrates the connection of our proposal to Norfolk. But Mr. Minor instructed the Planning Commission that it was not dealing with an individual application or applicant.
If Executive Ads Inc. were a large company asking the city for millions of dollars in support of this proposal, we probably would not face opposition to our proposal. Since we are a small business and asked the city not to contribute any funds but want to place the city in a win-win position, we are meeting opposition. This is a clear example of how the big fish continue to get large and the small fish continue to be eaten up.
RICHARD JAMES, president
Executive Ads Inc.
Norfolk, March 16, 1995 by CNB