Banner banter needs more research

Eric Bever

With regard to the “banner ordinance,” I do support the Little

League’s long-standing practice of providing advertising banners to

generous league sponsors. I also support a request of area citizens

to have the banners installed and removed on game days rather than

leaving them up for the duration of the season to limit the visual

impact in our public parks and schoolyards.

Of greatest concern to me is the fact that the ordinance and

administrative regulation, which were crafted to address the issue,

were not well conceived, and represents a virtual Pandora’s box,

giving to 13 groups a privilege requested by only three.

Do the people of Costa Mesa really want more than a dozen groups

posting semi-permanent advertising banners in public parks and on

school grounds? Do we desire the commercialization of our residential

neighborhoods?

During the Planning Commission study session on this issue, I was

astounded to learn that my peers on the commission had no desire to

address the shortcomings in the language and mechanics of the “banner

ordinance” and the accompanying administrative regulation.

For example, despite the fact that many of these advertising

banners would be placed upon Newport-Mesa Unified School District

school grounds, there was no reference to the school district in the

ordinance or the administrative regulation.

A question regarding acceptable content came up, and we were told

that the Little League had “standards,” but again, strangely, there

was no reference to Little League standards in the ordinance. While

regulating content is clearly not the city’s job, any relevant and

applicable standard should be referenced in the ordinance.

At one point during the study session, I stated that since this is

new code we should be vigilant in making sure it addresses the issue

effectively. To this, another commissioner flatly stated that this

was in fact not new code at all. Staff subsequently confirmed that we

were dealing with new code. Oddly, my peers’ unwillingness to work

out the kinks within the ordinance remained unchanged.

While it appears that the sole intent of this new ordinance is to

legalize the long-standing display of advertising banners to raise

funds for Costa Mesa’s three Little League organizations, the true

effect is to legalize the public display of advertising banners on

public property by any of the current 13 “Group 1” organizations.

Additionally, the ordinance takes the issue out of the purview of the

Code Enforcement Department and places all management onto the Parks

and Recreation Department.

In closing, it is not in the best interest of our city to approve

the “banner ordinance,” as forwarded by the Planning Commission last

week. The rush seems to be to allow the Little Leagues to use banners

in their ongoing season, however; the process required to achieve

final approval of the ordinance will not be complete until the month

of June.

It hardly seems appropriate to fail to carefully craft these codes

when rushing the process yields a product of dubious quality, opens

the possibility of “banner blight” in residential areas, parks and

schoolyards, and fails to meet the current needs of the Little League

schedule.

* ERIC BEVER is a Costa Mesa Planning Commissioner