Since March 30, 2009, I have been running a survey to gather public opinion on the Walgreens sign. Granted, “the public” is whoever views this site. But given that this site been mentioned on page 2 of the Sunday Post-Standard twice (now three times – 04/26/09), I think the public has had a good chance to weigh in.
So here are the results at a glance. The bold font is created by the survey software to indicate the choice getting the greatest number of votes.
(Note: The person taking the survey from IP address 24.58.252.63 on o4/22/2009 at 20:16:47 voted “Yes I like it” four times in a row within five minutes, so I deleted three of the votes in order to get an accurate picture. There were no other such repetitions of votes.)
That’s all well and good, but it was the comments that folks wrote in that were most revealing. The following is ALL of the comments as of Saturday, April 25 at 12:00 a.m. Each comment came from a different IP address (a different computer). All voting and comments are anonymous – I have no way of knowing who wrote them.
Are you in favor of the proposed Walgreens monument-style sign?
- It is not fair to take a position on this matter with out knowing the facts. However, having grown up in Eastwood in the 50′s and 60′s, I do believe that the community should be protected from unwanted development that tends to distract from the other wise pleasant family oriented community that is was and could continue to being. Seems to me that a store, such as Walgreens, could find a way to develop its venue with out a monument-style sign” and be a welcome addition to the community which it serves. Further, seems to me that the City Planning Board needs the vision, foresight and courage to “work with” Walgreens and the local community to satisfy all requirements, as advantageous as possible and not just rubber stamp development as straightforward and uncomplicated as possible.
- Mixed feellings, need to hear more. I’d like to see what the proposed sign looks like. I’m not averse to this type of signage if it fits the scale of the neighborhood. I do want to see this project completed as soon as possible. I do not want to see another occupant there. I do not want to set the precedent of overriding the design guidelines.
- I really don’t care. But if it’s such a big deal to everyone else, I’ll support them on it.
Is there anything else you’d like the Planning Commission to know about this issue?
- Hold all development to the Overlay’s Standards.. Let them do their work.
- Allow the Standards to form the street as they were created to do.
- Walgreens should not get an exemption for the sign.
- The whole community came out against this kind of sign before Walgreens decided to come in. It should not even be given a hearing.
- I find it despicable they are even considering this sign to be placed directly in back of the Veterans Monument for all to see. I also see it as a “big” distraction to traffic.
- As a US Army veteran (2yrs active, 4yrs reserve) and current member of the American Legion (Korean War), I see that sign to be in competition with the memorial park.
- Stick with Desgn Guidelines. Give them time and they will work. Waver once, and everyone will expect an exemption. Be a planning commission – not a “lack of planning” commission.
- This was discussed and they agreed not to put up this type of signage years ago.
- Signs are supposed to attract customers — who is Walgreens looking for? Isn’t there some different approach — we can’t just be against this signage and have nothing to suggest as an alternative.
- Laws, ordinances, guidelines are there for a reason.
- I am writing the rebuttal as we speak.
- The additional sign in any way, shape or form should not be allowed.
- Animated signs are a distraction for drivers and create a unnecessary risk for pedestrians at the intersection. The sign will also draw attention away from the monument (that’s what it is designed to do) I do not wish to live in the village of Walgreen.
- The city planning commission should (has to) uphold the laws that are on the books, please don’t allow developers to bully the City of Syracuse or the residents to get what they want, just because… Residents speaking out 12-1 should give you a pretty good idea of how Eastwood feels. Please don’t allow the monument sign. You’ll just be caving to developer pressure. I live four blocks from the intersection. Thank you.
- HUGE FLOWER POTS AT ENTRANCE WALK ON CORNER JUST AWAY FROM CURBSIDE WOULD SHOW CASE NICELY ALSO..IT’S A KEY SITE
- Please don’t let Eastwood go the way of the Northside and Southside, as evidenced by a recent visit to the wonderful city of Syracuse that my family grew up in and enjoy visiting each summer.
- The overlay district guidelines are needed to guide future development in Eastwood. They should be observed and enforced.
I encourage all concerned to visit Kathleen Joy’s website. She has posted there an excellent report on the meeting that took place between Guy Hart, Jr. (the developer) and about 30 members of the community. You are strongly encouraged to leave a comment on her website as well as on this one.
Friday, May 22, 2009
To the editor;
The question isn’t did Walgreens do a right by Eastwood? The answer to that question is yes, they did. However, largely because of the Eastwood Zoning Overlay Design Guidelines and Standards, without these rules things would have looked a lot different.
The correct question is should there be rules and should everyone follow them? The guidelines call for “no free standing signage” and “no animated signage”. They also state (regarding animated signage) that this “shall not be subject to exception”. Which now raises yet another question, is a digital readout sign animated? I would say yes, judging by the fact that the letters are moving or animated. If these are unreasonable guidelines, (and I think not) then they should be changed to allow for free standing signs.
Some would argue that because Walgreens spent millions of dollars that they should not be subject to the same rules that a smaller business would be subject to. That does not seem right to me.
Let’s talk about rules and guidelines. I suppose for those that want to preserve the look of Eastwood as it was ten years ago, we could go back to the days when we had no rules. However, I would say that that is how we got to where we were ten years ago. Since the guidelines, Eastwood has seen the best development we have ever had, including the Walgreens project. There is more to come and it should be subject to design review and up to the NEW standard of Eastwood not the old standard of plywood in-fills and T-111 siding.
Since the guidelines, property values in Eastwood have risen to an all time high. James Street, although it still has issues, looks better than it has in its entire history. I look forward to spending money in Walgreens and I urge this community to support it by shopping there often, but not by bending the rules.
Planning commission, 10 years ago, the people of Eastwood urged the city council to pass these rules now it is up to you to keep them enforced.