POTD: Irked
Jan 18, 2011 6:00 - 6 Comments
Here’s a sign on the lawn of the neighbors of Pumphrey’s funeral home. They appear to be exercising their First Amendment right to let people know they are unhappy with the outcome of a recent vote by the Mayor and Council. The sign is generating some heat in local residents’ email inboxes.
Follow on Twitter
I saw this sign this weekend. The sentiments expressed seem to agree with those of the Planning Commission, the Historic District Commission, and the City Staff, who after a thorough review of the issue, all came out against allowing the parking lot . I do wonder why those three councilmen would toss aside the conclusions of the staff and commissions in the city whose job it is to assess the advisability and wisdom of such matters. I guess those three councilmen think they’re the only ones who know what’s best for Rockville. Kudos to the neigbors for exercising their First Amendment rights.
How many times I wanted to put a big sign in front of my house commenting on (what I thought was) some stupid legislation! Might be starting a new trend. Just kidding, but the thought is appealing.
this sign is an eyesore and creates an unsafe distraction for the many drivers on w. montgomery avenue.
it also points a finger at elected officials who voted the way the majority of affected citizens asked them to vote–which is what elected officials are supposed to do.
the three who voted for the amendment allowing the lot each had his own reasons, among them safety. someone please correct me if i am wrong, but i believe that all the folks who live the closest and are most affected–save the house with the sign right next store–spoke in favor of the amendment. the west end citizen’s association, in a straw vote, saw more votes cast for than against this.
is an empty lot a better “historic” use of the property than a parking lot, which helps takes cars off the street, and assists a longtime business in meeting the needs of its customers? i think not.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and in my eye the sign is quite beautifully executed and is an admirable example of first amendment rights to free speech. It’s also quite witty, don’t you think? The sign itself merely attributes the vote to the three people responsible for it. Presumably those three councilmen should have no problem having the public know how they voted. The neighbors I’ve polled have enjoyed the sign, admiring the creativity and spirit of the neighbors who went to the trouble and expense of designing and putting it up. Lighten up Ms Defino…try to have a Happy New Year!
mr. bowan, i lived through the beall’s grant sign saga, which pitted neighbor against neighbor. we have yet to recover from that, and i hate to see it begin anew with this sign. i don’t know why you feel the need to ask me to “lighten up.” i thought it was important to present the facts behind the mayor and council vote on this issue, and i do not see that you have taken issue with my recollection.
of course, the mayor and council do meet in public and their actions on this and other issues have already been widely reported, so there is no secret being revealed by that sign. i also guess that the definition of “massive” must also be in the eye of the beholder, as i believe the lot is to be 50 spaces.
to you i would also say, have a peaceful new year.
as an update: the sign, through no fault of the sign-makers, is larger than is legally allowed cannot stay up at this size.