THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, March 12, 1995 TAG: 9503120322
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY ALEX MARSHALL, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: NORFOLK LENGTH: Long : 101 lines
A majority of the City Council is moving to approve, despite the objections of city consultants and planners, an electronic sign that would flash commercial and public messages to motorists along Waterside Drive.
The sign, which would be erected by a private company on city land, could potentially display messages about everything from the latest play at the Wells Theater to advertisements for potato chips.
The Planning Commission, the Design Review Board and private design consultants who work with the city have rejected the idea as commercializing public space and the equivalent of a city-sponsored billboard.
``We thought the idea preposterous,'' James E. Gehman, chairman of the city's Design Review Board, told the Planning Commission. Gehman's comments came shortly before the commission unanimously rejected endorsing a change in the law that now prohibits such ventures on public property.
``The only discussion we had was: how did it get this far?'' Gehman said. ``To think we could give up some of our public civic space we have worked so hard for.''
But four councilmen - Paul R. Riddick, Herbert Collins Sr., the Rev. Joseph N. Green Jr. and Randy Wright - say they support the project.
Mason C. Andrews, a former mayor, is the lone active opponent on the council, charging that the body is skewing the public process to move forward with personal political aims.
The sign is the brainchild of Richard James, an entrepreneur who has been promoting the idea for almost a decade. A Norfolk police detective, James has had his proposal informally discussed but has never before gotten it close to approval.
James, president of Executive Ads, is proposing that the city lease him land for the sign on Waterside Drive, between the Omni Hotel and Waterside.
In return, the city would get the right to use the sign 51 percent of the time. It would allow Norfolk, James said, to advertise Nauticus, Waterside, Scope and other public facilities.
``It allows the visitors to Norfolk to know what the city has to offer,'' James said. ``For example, it could let a visitor know that we have a zoo three miles from downtown.''
But people opposed to the project say the city should not be sponsoring commercial advertising.
``By whatever name this is called, this is a billboard, and I think it has no place in this city,'' said James Janata, president of the East Ocean View Civic League.
Councilman Riddick said the opposition to James' plan shows the city's disinterest in black entrepreneurs like James and anyone outside the loop of Norfolk insiders.
``The solution is to let guys like this young man who has been jerked around for nine years, and who has the wherewithal to get a business, to get into business,'' Riddick told the council in a January discussion of the issue.
But to Andrews, entering into a lease with James would be an example of the insider-process Riddick deplores.
The Downtown Development Committee, The Planning Commission, The Design Review Board and city consultants have failed to endorse James' proposal, he noted. If these entities go against a plan, Andrews said, the council should not overrule them simply to reward a favorite of Riddick.
Andrews took the unusual step for a sitting council member of testifying against the proposal before the Planning Commission on Feb. 23.
At the podium, Andrews, who served on the commission three decades ago, read the comments of design consultants who had reviewed the proposal.
The Planning Commissioners said they had not seen these comments.
After the meeting, several commissioners told Assistant Planning Director Ralph W. Miner Jr. that the staff should have included such information and made a formal recommendation on the proposal.
``For someone to stand at the podium and cite professional comments by people like Ray Gindroz, and for us not to have seen them, puts us at a handicap,'' said Commissioner Donald L. Williams.
City law probits placing private signs on public property. The proposal to amend the law to allow the sign goes before the council on March 21. It would grant permission for a billboard 12 feet tall, with a display area of 100-square feet on each side - about half the size of Scope's outside electronic board.
Even if the council changes the law, it would not guarantee that James could put a sign on Waterside Drive. His proposal would have to be considered separately by the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission and the Council.
In addition, state code prohibits leasing or selling public land for private use for more than five years without soliciting bids. This means James would probably have to bid for the right to do his project.
A design consultant to the city, Jonathan Barnett, said if the city wanted such a sign, it should build one itself to avoid sharing its space with commercial advertisers. The city owns the electronic billboard at Scope, but does not run private advertisements on it.
``Putting commercial messages on public property in one or more prominent downtown locations is not going to enhance downtown's appearance or image,'' said Barnett in a memo to a planning staffer. ``I don't know of any city that does this. Why should Norfolk?'' by CNB