I would add that there are four at-large Metro Council Members who stand to rake in more influence on the LED bill, and two of them, Jerry Maynard and Ronnie Steine, are progressive favorites.
"The Zoning Administrator has indicated that the Codes Department considers electronic signs and billboards to be illegal under the current Metro Code sign provisions because, in application, most such signs violate the provisions of subsection H in the current law, which prohibits signs with 'lights or illuminations that flash, move, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker or vary in intensity or color.' This bill proposes to permit digital signs and digital billboards like those recently erected along I-65 near 100 Oaks Mall, I-24 westbound in Hermitage, and elsewhere in Metro. According to the Zoning Administrator, all of these digital signs and billboards are on private property, except Metro's convention center sign which is on public property. Those signs erected with a valid Metro permit were approved with the explicit statement that such signs were not to be digital. The proposed bill would clarify that digital billboards are allowed so long as the display message remains static or fixed for 8 seconds or more, the transition time between messages is two seconds or less, and digital billboards are spaced a minimum of 2,000 feet apart.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends disapproval of the bill as drafted because electronic signs would be permitted without adequately safeguarding Nashville's neighborhoods. When the Zoning Code's sign provisions were adopted by the Metro Council in the early 1990's, electronic signs did not exist. That said, the Planning Department does not believe the Zoning Code was intended to be interpreted to permit such signs now or in the future. The provisions of Section 17.32.050.G and H are broad enough to encompass this latest sign technology, and they expressly prohibit it."
As the Planning Staff notes reveal, we have electronic digital billboards in Nashville that are illegal. Who has issued permits for these signs? Why were they allowed if illegal? Is this another Codes Administrator giving himself the ultimate power and a supporting councilman changing the laws to cover his tracks? Where does Bobby Joslin stand in all of this?
Wasn't it Joslin who came to the rescue when a certain Codes Administrator was about to lose his job for issuing a permit to tear down the historic home in Madison for a Home Depot? Isn't it Joslin who gave money to so many council campaigns? Isn't it Joslin who stands to rake up the cash on these deals?
Never mind the mainstream media. Where are is the progressive outcry against CM Maynard and CM Steine in bed with some of the more unscrupulous characters involved in what looks like an illegitimate attempt to cover a signmaker's influence?