KEY POINTS:
Fresh from its attempt to ban billboards from the centre of Auckland, the city council is now turning its sights on the signs that clutter suburban shopping centres. Before too long, if the council presses on with its plans, the jumble of suburban commercial signs will be replaced by a thicket of complicated - and expensive - regulations.
These regulations will define what is allowed according to size, proportion of the shop frontage and position of the proposed signs. The stated objective sounds sensible enough, at least when considered in isolation.
It is to reduce the visual clutter, make the city more attractive to visitors and workers, and to highlight heritage buildings. As deputy mayor Bruce Hucker put it, the result should be to "create a civilised urban environment".
Most people will recognise instantly that it takes a lot more than the minute regulation of signs to achieve this lofty purpose, and will wonder at councillors spending so much time and energy on such a small-minded process when there are so many genuinely pressing problems confronting them. Nor will it escape people's attention that the notion of "heritage" is an adaptable concept in this council.
No considerations of heritage prevented it from allowing the demolition of Remuera's historic Coolangatta mansion last year and then voting to keep the decision a guilty secret.
But "heritage" is being used now. Just as the city centre, with its unexceptional buildings, hardly warrants this attention, so too with most buildings in most shopping centres.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that judgment will be made, more often than not, by the context.
Thus a mass of commercial signs in a residential street would seem unsightly and unacceptable, whereas the same signs in a shopping precinct would be normal and expected. Indeed, there is a good argument to say that the proliferation of brightly coloured and illuminated signs clamouring for attention in business areas are a welcome indicator of robust economic health.
It is bad enough that the regulations are unnecessary and undesirable. Even worse that they are going to add another cost to small businesses who are already overburdened with government and council-imposed compliance charges despite their central role as a vital driver of economic activity.
Under the council's draft bylaw they will have 18 months to comply with the new rules. How much each will have to pay will vary but one store manager in the Great North Road estimates it will cost a minimum of $5000.
That is a high cost for one small business but it is even greater for the economy when you consider that, according to the New Zealand Signs and Display Association, up to 60 per cent of businesses in retail areas and 25 per cent in industrial areas are likely to be affected.
In theory, all is not lost. The public have a month to make submissions before the council votes on the proposal. But those in opposition will take cold comfort from knowing that all five councillors who will sit on the panel to hear their submissions have already voted in favour of the draft bylaw.
Of course councillors on the panel protest that they will genuinely listen but, as one frustrated businessman put it, "it is very easy for a person behind a desk to set a standard but it is not coming out of their pocket". At the very least, the charade that these same councillors can behave with detachment and open minds should be ended and a new panel formed. At best, the heavy hands of regulation should be stayed, with common-sense enforcement of existing rules the real solution.
