EVIDENCE MOUNTS that Rome needs a new “Clean It or Lien It” ordinance —one that would be applied to the brains of some in the municipal bureaucracy. The nit-picking mentality of some of the “hired guns” charged with protecting the beauty (in some places) and historical ambiance (in even fewer places) of this fair city is starting to get obviously out of hand. Rules should be guidelines with some flexibility built into them. Those increasingly seem not the sort that Rome has.
Worse, there appear to be so many chefs stirring the pot that an odd concoction is sure to result. Planning Commission, Rome Historic Preservation Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals and Adjustments, City Commission all seem to have some sort of say on the most trivial of appearance matters — and often the ability to “veto” the opinions of the other.
At some point, perhaps already reached, this state of affairs will drive away new enterprises. Is it really impossible to do business in Rome without having a staff of lawyers on retainer to deal with the city?
Two recent disputes between the public and private sectors, out of quite a few lately, seem to emphasize this.
FIRST, OF COURSE, there’s the Santa Fe Cattle Co. restaurant’s deliberate use of an old, rusty truck with company logo as a distinctive, landscaped emblem for its business.
That’s a no-no, says Rome, because 1.) it isn’t set far enough back from the road for a sign and 2.) inoperable trucks aren’t allowed to be stored on site under the city code.
The restaurant responds it is neither a sign nor a junked vehicle but a “work of art,” and vows to take the matter to court.
The city, having missed little in its voluminous set of ordinances, has a covering clause that prohibits “A sign mounted or painted upon a parked vehicle that is positioned for the primary purpose of acting as a sign exposed to the public and is not in use in the ordinary course of carrying out its transportation function.” However, that’s aimed at “portable signs,” which this one plainly isn’t.
One has to wonder if, when perhaps the best-known and jarringly visible restaurant signage went up for the first time — McDonald’s golden arches — it caught the same kind of static.
Don’t new, fast-growing chain eateries have an equal right to establish their identity? Whatever happened to the notion of “cut them some slack”? Rule bound, alas, often means hidebound.
EVEN MORE mind-numbing is the situation on East Second Avenue where, apparently, the Historic Preservation Commission doesn’t know its history. It rejected a request from Mike White, who rehabbed the old Rome Manufacturing Building in a manner that drew national attention and acclaim, to demolish a building across the street in order to provide parking for new tenants. It would carry on the design of an adjacent lot surrounded by an iron fence and a tree-lined sidewalk.
Can’t do that, said the commission, as it would create a gap in the row of existing buildings along East Second. Gasp! A gap!
To be sure, while old, old Rome maps show a “dwelling” on that site, before the current business, which was itself preceded by a service station, on the other side of the Rome Manufacturing building there was forever and a day a “gap.” It was the site of a Southern Railroad track, platform and coal yard back in the day when today’s history was made.
Not only that, but standing at that corner and looking at the other side of Second Avenue, up and down the block, what does one see? “Gaps” known as parking lots.
There’s more of them than there are buildings.
Guidelines make sense. Rigid bureaucracy does not. Neither does having too many cooks trying to whip up what the Rome of tomorrow tastes like.
IT NOT ONLY makes no sense to throw flak up to bring down new enterprises bringing dollars and jobs to Greater Rome, in short order it will gain Rome a reputation as an environment hostile to innovation by the business sector.
While there’s nothing wrong with so many municipal bodies, presumably staffed by “experts,” looking at such issues and making recommendations, the real question is: Should they have the power to actually throw monkeywrenches into the works?
If the city is going to wind up in court anyway over a “work of art/sign” controversy, why not just set up a single arbiter for these bodies to argue their case before ... and who makes the determination based on some semblance of common sense instead of legalese? A sort of “development czar,” in other words, who would be still remain responsible to the city’s elected officials.
How’s about stopping all of this rinky-dink stuff and getting on with the real business of making Greater Rome better and its economy stronger?
|
No Related links found
|
