Permits for Temporary Signs

Economy |
By Sarah Brodsky | Read Time 2 minutes

A Post-Dispatch article about a “Help Wanted” sign provides anecdotal evidence that supports my opinion of permits: Permit requirements are a tax (and a pain in the neck for people who have to deal with them).

The article reports on a sign that a business in Maryland Heights put up in order to let commuters know it was hiring. A code enforcement officer spotted the sign. Apparently, the sign blocked the view of some drivers, which would be a good reason to reposition it. But the officer wasn’t only interested in moving the sign in the name of safety and welfare; there was also the issue of permits. Maryland Heights businesses must pay a fee to erect a sign, and then the sign has to come down after two weeks. Businesses can repeat the process three times in a year. If they want to hire four times in a year, or post signs more than three times for any other reason, they’re out of luck.

Forbidding signs that obstruct visibility or hinder traffic is reasonable. Charging $25 for the privilege of erecting a harmless, temporary sign is not. It penalizes business that want to communicate with the world around them. In this case, the business wanted to let people know it was hiring — a message that everyone should welcome during this economy. The manager quoted in the article was right to be annoyed by Maryland Heights’ regulations.

About the Author

Sarah Brodsky

Similar Stories

Support Us

Headline to go here about the good with supporting us.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging