By whose or what authority do newspaper companies have the right to locate their vending machines if and when a municipality lacks an ordinance?
It’s ludicrous that the Newburyport City Council requires permits and details regulations for everything from boat docking to outdoor business advertising but has no statute in the municipal code for ad-heavy newspapers and the boxy sidewalk structures in which they are racked.
It’s doubly frustrating to see newsracks chained to city property, such as in this photo which I shot today. The daily and weekly papers are not just pole grinding but they are chained in front of The Tannery.
Similar scenes exist, for instance, in front of the public library and in front of Ferraz-Shawmut.
If a business chained its A-frame to a telephone pole, it would be gone in no time.
Why do newspaper companies feel they can skirt the law? When I spoke to some city officials about the issue, they said chaining is not allowed; though to be technical, nothing and anything are simultaneously allowed and therein lies the problem.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want any government donning overzealous gloves, as Neenah, Wisconsin is attempting with a plan to regulate the size and placement of the boxy machines nor do I suggest Manchester, Connecticut is correct by prioritizing site locations by newspaper frequency.
Shouldn’t the media portray itself on public property as an equal to any other profit-seeking business? Even the U.S. Postal Service and their trademark blue mailboxes aren’t chained to poles.
You may have seen or heard a few weeks ago that the Boston City Council revised its newsrack ordinance and now charges newspaper companies an annual registration fee of $300 and $25 per box. San Francisco and Lexington, Kentucky are also passing laws this summer.
Considering the fiscal dearth of many communities, including here in Newburyport, I favor any means to bring in a little bit of this and a little bit of that to the city coffers. If that means the ability to charge a per-box fee, is that so wrong? Maybe not $300, but $100? If the A-frame permit goes up to x price, why not slightly lower it for the news?
By example, I point to successful ordinances in Lakewood, Colorado and both Alameda County and Mountain View in California which respect the First Amendment and regulate and permit media wishing to locate newsracks on public property.
Note that the two California ordinances specify newsracks cannot be chained to telephone poles or existing signs; they should be free-standing or bolted to cement blocks.
I suggest the City Council draft an ordinance, molded after Lakewood and Mountain View; and prohibit pole chaining, require permitting, and start preserving the downtown as a cultural historical treasure and not an advertising free-for-all.
What do you think?
Related posts:
Comments:
Ari Herzog is an online media strategist and Newburyport City Councilor-Elect.
978-558-0008
ConvoTrack
{ 6 comments }
Hee, hee … good one! You are not only very observant, but very correct. Why not charge? And, I might add, those boxes at The Tannery create a traffic hazard as people stop their car on Water St. to run to the boxes …
I think you raise an excellent point.
Something should be implemented for the sake of consistency.
Moreover, one could argue that newsracks are far more intrusive than A-frames.
The former is merely a passive device offering information.
The latter actually oncourages passers-by to stop and perform a commericial action.
I’m sure if the tea shop would be shut down in an instant if it set up a small T-stand at the corner of State and Middle.
Sorry, folks, but most laws that have attempted to ban newspaper boxes have been found unconstitutional on first amendment grounds. I remember that Boston tried to ban them in the Back Bay. There have been a few successes, though. I think the Beacon Hill neighborhood managed to write generic “street furniture” rules that had some success.
BTW, it took 3 tries to get your damned captcha right again.
1. Error; probably mistook ‘g’ for ‘q’.
2. No graphic shown.
3. Got it.
Now, lets see what happens this time.
Hooey I say, and I love the first amendment as much as the next guy.
Boxes are commercial enterprises. Just take a gander in front of the post office.
Interesting point though, what would happen if our stores hired someone to stand on the sidewalk wearing a sandwich board. I doubt they could be touched per the first amendment.
But A-frame signs don’t fall under teh same protection?
@Gillian: Thanks. You never asked this question before?
@Tom: If the A-frame argument wasn’t in vogue, I wouldn’t have thought of newsracks. I thank the city council for the inspiration.
Your second comment raises a question: What is an A-frame to begin with? The city ordinance says under Chapter 12-1.5 that such signage is a “movable sign.” What if the A-frame doesn’t move but is bolted to a cement block or chained to a pole? Perhaps the ordinance needs a glossary when revised.
@Dick: In my research, I came across many a community that hit the First Amendment obstacle, but if you see some of the ordinances I linked to, and follow-up by googling their press coverage, it’s a happy medium.
Comments on this entry are closed.