Surely the kerfuffle over a small sign calling for the restoration of door-to-door mail service is a ‘sign’ that St. Albert may be suffering from over-regulation.
What’s next? Do we follow Ottawa’s lead and begin requiring our children to acquire a licence in order to set up a lemon aide stand? The very idea that St. Albert deems the sign complaint-worthy can only add to our unwelcome reputation as elitist snobs.
Thankfully Grandin resident Tara Seeger appears to be handling with humour the order to remove the sign from her front yard after someone complained about it.
She was told by city staff in a letter to remove the sign by July 11 because it was illegal to advertise a third-party business in this manner. She contacted the mayor to point out the sign was not advertising which prompted a second letter now calling the sign “unauthorized” and setting August 1 as the date for its removal.
In a nearby yard a We Vote CBC sign of similar size has been posted for several months. The only perceivable difference is that someone complained about Seeger’s sign. The bylaw only comes into effect when a complaint is lodged. Perhaps the complainant is a CBC listener, but one who doesn’t like the idea of returning to delivered mail?
It makes us wonder how city bylaw officers would react if someone complained about Block Parent or Neighbourhood Watch signs. What about a sign posted by proud parents whose child completed the summer reading program? Would these be deemed third-party advertising as well? Where does it end?
When does the level of regulation become ludicrous? How far do we want to go in allowing one neighbour to control the use of another’s personal property?
We completely agree that rules are needed to control unsightly premises around the community, but one could hardly argue that Seeger’s Cultivating Front Yards award-winning yard qualifies as unsightly. And we don’t disagree that there are many regulations around signs written into the city’s Land Use Bylaw that make a great deal of sense including those addressing issues of traffic visibility or proper placement on public property and roadways.
But it doesn’t make sense that a private individual placing a small sign on their private yard should have to apply for a development permit.
The letter to Seeger notes that Schedule C of the bylaw is there “to ensure that signs do not unduly interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring properties.” A huge sign or a rude sign certainly might be construed to interfere with people’s enjoyment or property values, but a small sign supporting mail delivery? Seriously?
Let’s show a little common sense.
