Temporary signs: "Sale This Weekend"

Among the local business people who spoke at last night's City Council Workshop on the subject of the   proposed revisions to the Sign Ordinance were two who insisted that temporary signs are vital to their businesses and that the temporary sign provisions proposed are insufficient.  I'll write about both of them.

The first comment was from the owner of a gift shop on S. Fort Hood Street.  He said that signs announcing "Sale" drove a large part of his business (especially on Federal holidays) and that when he could not longer put up such signs, his sales fell 40%.  This is worthy of consideration.

There are a number things to look at:

• Do we care about temporary signs?  If so, why?
• Was the reported drop in sales caused by the removal of temporary signs, or were there other possible causes?
• Is there something about Killeen shoppers that make them especially responsive to such signs when buyers in Harker Heights, Salado, Georgetown, Leander, Cedar Park and other local communities don't seem to require as many of them?
• In what way are the proposed temporary-sign provisions insufficient for this man's purposes?
• Are there cost-effective ways for this business owner to draw attention to his sale events that don't involve frequent resort to temporary signs?
• Is there any observable impact to city revenue?  In other words, did the drop in this store's business cause a decrease in city sales tax returns, or did people just take their custom to other Killeen businesses?
• What did the Planning and Zoning Commission say when this testimony was presented to them? Did they follow a consistent methodology in evaluating this testimony?

Obviously this is not an exhaustive list.  The complaint should be looked into on these and no doubt other grounds.  A problem is that the city council is not organized in a way that makes these kinds of inquiries easy.  Perhaps the council can return the issue to Planning and Zoning with a request to resolve the questions.