Editor’s Note: The author is the architect of the Garfield Center’s lobby and marquee, however the opinions he offers here are his own professional point of view.
There are good reasons for Chestertown to embrace the emerging electronic sign technology given the powers it has to stimulate business, but there are also good reasons to consider restricting it. Programmable signs are capable of assaulting our senses and disrupting neighborhood continuity. On the other hand, our town can set limitations on how they are programmed to prevent both. No one wants to see these signs proliferate out of control, but this essay is not about their merits or liabilities, and not about how we can control them.
This essay is about how Chestertown is being rendered incapable of addressing its business issues by town leaders who are willing to manipulate the permitting process to undermine even the possibility of a fair appraisal of our businesses’ needs. It is about how our town’s permitting behavior is causing the business owners amongst us to lose out, and our marketplaces to become less competitive. Let’s begin with a marketing truth:
Communication Stimulates Commerce
At least, it does when it can be understood. Could it be that one of the reasons the Chester Five Theatres seem depressed is our town won’t let them have the signage they need to communicate their current attractions and upcoming shows?
We, in our cars, struggle to read the string of black plastic letters on the Chester 5’s white panels. Is that the name of one movie, or two movies, or three? Our eyes strain. It’s confusing, boring, ugly, a turn off.
Even when we can read it, a movie’s name doesn’t tell us anything we don’t already know. So if we haven’t heard of the movie, what is there in this signage to appeal? They cannot tell us anything about the current show (for example, is it rated ‘R’) or what’s coming up next. Is this failure to communicate a consequence of Chestertown’s sign regulations?
Does inadequate signage depress attendance? Does lower attendance reduce revenue? At the Chester Five the answers are writ large in under-investment, for example, in seating that is no longer comfortable. Must we lower our prices to get more bodies into these seats? Shabby depresses revenue, too, as less leads to more less.
Are a Theater’s Needs for More Signage Greater than other Businesses?
Most businesses have only one sign. In fact, Chestertown’s Sign Regulations stipulate: Only “one flat sign per [business] occupancy… is allowed.” But, as we can see, this theater has a large sign which identifies itself as the “Chester 5”, and it also has two other signs, two white boards on which black plastic letters can be hung to spell out the current shows.
How many signs is this shopping center theater allowed? It turns out the number is much higher than any of us could have guessed, but guess we must because for seventeen (17) years Chestertown has not published this theater’s exceptional provisions in its Sign Regulations.
The Garfield Center only learned how many signs a shopping center theater is permitted after the Garfield team had completed their final permitting presentation, and only then because a member of the Planning Commission asked the Zoning Administrator a pointed question:
lI don’t want to put you on the spot, and I’m not sure if this is something you can answer without research, but are there alternatives in terms of a zoning amendment?
The Zoning Administrator replied:
Well, we do have sort of a precedent, I guess you might call it, when the Chester Five Theatres came to Chestertown in 1996 the Planning Commission, Bill Ingersoll at the time, brought up the fact that they had requested marquee signs, that are the same white signs with black lettering that they have at their theater, because obviously you can’t have a theater and not be able to advertise their shows. So the Planning Commission made a positive recommendation.
They held a public meeting and they took it to the Mayor and Council, and the Mayor and Council actually created an ordinance that I didn’t know existed, but in research just this past Friday – because we are in the process of digitizing all of the town’s minutes, the records going back as far as we have records for, so we were able to track down the Planning Commission meeting and subsequently the Mayor and Council meeting and then the ordinance, which for some reason never was codified.
So it doesn’t appear in the ordinances, but it is part of the Zoning Ordinance, that in the C-1 District that type of sign was permitted for the Chester Five, for theaters in general in the C-1 District. At the time that the Mayor and Council were deliberating about this Mabel Mumford asked does this extend to the C-2 District, which is where the theater is – where the Prince Theater at that time was located, and the response was no.
This explanation leaves the clear impression that the Town has in the past created some sort of special exception for this shopping center theater – we have only one. We are told why this special exception was necessary: “because obviously you can’t have a theater and not be able to advertise their shows.”
But the Commissioners could not know how many extra signs this special exception allows or how much this special exception is in support of the Garfield’s proposal due to the fact that it was never published in Chestertown’s Sign Regulations.
Had the Garfield been fairly informed, the Garfield could have drawn telling parallels between its own needs for a sign that can market its current and upcoming shows and the number of additional signs allowed the Chester 5. Depriving the Garfield of such crucial information put this downtown anchor business at an unfair disadvantage.
Only after the hearing was a fait accompli was the Garfield Center able to acquire a copy of this 1996 amendment. The Garfield was quite surprised to find it allows this shopping center theater to have five (5) more signs than any other business in town:
Movie Theatres shall be allowed an additional flat, changeable lettered sign of fifteen (15) square feet for each interior theatre unit, the total square footage of all signs not to exceed the square footage allowed by the linear front footage of the building and to be used for movie titles only.
Our town leaders must know theaters need extra signage, five more signs in this theater’s case, but how are Chestertown’s other businesses to find that out? In the seventeen years of its existence, this regulation hasn’t been published.
More to the point, when the Planning Commission was considering taking their “No Go” stand against the Garfield’s programmable sign, the Commissioners whose role it is to judge the Garfield’s proposal, were not informed about the five (5) additional signs that Chestertown’s Sign Regulations allow the other theater to have, nor was the Garfield team.
How many Signs does a Theater really Need?
At first blush, one might guess it must be the three we see, not counting the paper signs pasted on the glass, which the Sign Regulations allow without permits. By law, five additional signs are allowed because the Chester 5 has, as its name implies, five “interior theater unit[s]”. But note that the text amendment restricts the size of these additional signs to “fifteen (15) square feet” each. The Chester 5’s letter boards are almost three times that size, at about 40 square feet each.
On this issue alone, the Chester 5 cannot be said to be in compliance with the Town’s Sign Regulations, but shouldn’t that be easy to fix now when the town is in the process of amending its Sign Regulations? It would be but for the fact that there are seven other more egregious violations Chestertown would rather we not notice – the seven poster cases marketing current and upcoming shows.
Letter boards are the only type of sign Chestertown’s Regulations will allow this theater to use to promote its shows, and there’s no room on them to tell us what the current show is about, or what’s coming soon. Those needs are being (lamely) addressed by the seven poster cases under the canopy, at the end of the shopping center’s concourse. But these posters are also too small to be read from a car. Worse yet for revenue, there are no pedestrians at this end of the concourse during normal business hours (9 to 5) because there are no stores on this side of the theater entrance. These signs can only be talking to pedestrians who are there to see a current show. More to the point, Chestertown’s Sign Regulations do not permit any of these seven signs, regardless of their purpose. The Chester 5 must choose between promoting its upcoming shows with unpermitted signage, or complying and dying. Responsible government does not leave its businesses in such a lose-lose predicament.
So the Chester 5 theater has 10 signs in all, of which 9 are in violation of Chestertown’s Sign Regulations. Here is how the reality of what the Chester 5 has installed (to meets its true needs) compares with what Chestertown’s unrealistic Sign Regulations allow:
Note that none of these are new violations, nor is it reasonable to believe our local government can be unaware of so many violations in such a highly visible location. Chestertown’s leaders must be turning a blind eye.
From a marketplace competitiveness point of view, the worst outcome of this permitting behavior is that it deprives the Planning Commission and Town Council of any real understanding the theater’s true needs for signage and of the opportunity to shape regulations that can meet those needs.
Our deciders cannot realize that even though Chestertown has enacted a special amendment to permit the Chester 5 to have five letter boards to promote their current shows, this theater still needs seven (7) more signs to promote its current and upcoming shows. Chestertown’s Sign Regulations are simply too restrictive to allow this theater to thrive. That business truth never gets to the table.
A CLUTTER OF TEN SIGNS THAT CAN BARELY COMMUNICATE
Meanwhile, the Zoning Administrator has instructed the Planning Commission that “To allow the [Garfield Center’s] requested special exception for the[ir] theater alone would most likely violate the uniformity requirement in Section 4-201 of the Maryland Land Use Code…” He does not clarify for the Planning Commission that in 1996 the Mayor & Council did exactly that, carve out a special exception for the new shopping center theater, and there is no mention of this legislation in his written report.
As their minutes reflect, the Planning Commission relied upon the Zoning Administrator’s testimony as a central reason (shown in bold below) to deny the Garfield Center’s programmable sign:
Mr. Watson moved to deny the request for a text amendment for an LED sign on the grounds that it is not legal, as it did not fit with the uniformity act; it violates the Comprehensive Plan; it creates a dangerous precedent regarding LED signage; the 21st century technology does not fit with the historic streetscape in the pedestrian-oriented environment; it is not in an appropriate location, and; it is out of place in the heart of the Historic District.
In truth, carving out a similar exception for the Garfield Center would only bring this downtown theater up to parity with its shopping center cousin, which we now realize is suffering under a regime of unreasonably restrictive sign regulations.
However, the Commission doesn’t know this. It has been left to decide the Garfield’s fate in ignorance of the five additional signs Chestertown’s regulations permit the other theater and the fact that this theater needs, and has been allowed to operate with, many more signs than that.
We cannot know their motivation for condoning so many signs which the Sign Regulations clearly do not allow, but the fact that they have, is conclusive testimony that our Town Officials know their Sign Regulations are out of whack with reality. At least for theaters, Chestertown’s Sign Regulations need a total revamp.
Misinterpreting the Comprehensive Plan
Not disclosing supportive legislation is not the only way Chestertown has undermined the possibility that the Garfield Center’s proposal would get a fair hearing. The Zoning Administrator’s report also abbreviates the Historic Resources goals established in our Town’s Comprehensive Plan. These are principles the town has enacted to govern itself with respect to how its officials and commissions must act to nurture our Historic Marketplace.
In his (verbal and written) report, Chestertown’s Zoning Administrator tells the Planning Commission, a Sign Ordinance text amendment, which would permit the Marquee Signs will fulfill two of the Comprehensive Plan’s General Heritage Goals: to “encourage redevelopment that is sympathetic with the character of historic Chestertown,” and “protect the authenticity of Chestertown’s historic resources” but he omits key words in each Goal, which change their meaning. Here are these two General Heritage Goals in full, with the missing text shown in bold:
Encourage design of new structures and redevelopment that is sympathetic with the character of historic Chestertown.
Encourage businesses and activities that protect the authenticity of Chestertown’s historic resources.
The missing words are key to understanding how the Comprehensive Plan intends we protect our “Heritage”, as the first goal directs our town authorities to actively encourage the “design of new structures” such as the Garfield’s proposed screen, and the second goal calls for our town authorities to “encourage businesses and activities” capable of sustaining Chestertown’s historic resources, such as the Garfield Center itself.
It could be he does not quote these principles in full because, by omitting key words, the meaning of each goal is sufficiently altered so that the Zoning Administrator can claim the Garfield’s proposed programmable screen violates the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, when in truth the opposite can be argued that in different ways, each calls for the Planning Commission (who authored these principles) to help the Garfield Center acquire more effective signage. At a minimum, we can be sure the Town’s Comprehensive Plan calls for our Commissions and our Town Council to find ways it can support the Garfield Center’s viability. Helping the Garfield Center acquire efficacious signage is the best opportunity at hand.
Here again, if the Zoning Administrator had shared his report with the Commission and Garfield Center in advance, these points could have been debated – resulting in a fair hearing of the issues, productive at finding long term answers to these complex issues.
Gold and Grit
But as it now stands, the Planning Commission has recommended we ban every type of electronic sign, including any screen inside a store within six feet of a display window or door. The Town Council has scheduled a public hearing on that ban for 7 PM Monday, August 19.
As explained below, some of Chestertown’s leaders have been managing our town’s permitting hearings from the outset to achieve such a total ban. We can suppose they believe in their hearts they know what is best for Chestertown, and therefore they believe they are justified in taking all measures to secure the outcome they are positive is absolutely right for us all, including partisan tactics.
The trouble with such an assertive attitude is, the opposition may believe just as earnestly in their “right” outcome, and the fight that then ensues destroys all possibility of win-win. Everyone loses, because no one can trust Chestertown is maintaining a process capable of coming to grips with real business needs and the merits of the alternatives for meeting them. Without true transparency, no reasonable compromise is possible.
That is where we are with Chestertown’s government. It isn’t that our officials intend dishonesty, but that they have lost sight of their most fundamental duty to maintain a level playing field for all concerned. As a consequence, our institutions and businesses cannot trust there is wisdom or equity in Chestertown’s permitting processes.
I am hoping this essay can be “a panning of Chestertown’s permitting flow” not only to bring to light behaviors we can agree not to tolerate in our town government, but also to illuminate the lessons which our theaters’ permitting experiences have for us all about our theaters’ true needs for effective signage, and how the various parties involved can cooperate to help our theaters thrive – the Gold and the Grit.
The Gold
By “Gold” I mean the nuggets of insight which the Garfield’s travail has brought to light. Most of this gold is not sufficiently refined that it can be immediately used, but it is ore we can work with to enrich our future. For example, in our consideration of the Chester Five, there are some truths glittering:
GOLD – Almost two decades ago our Town Council recognized that theaters do indeed have extraordinary needs for signage and therefore they changed their Sign Regulations to permit the only theater in C1 Commercial zoning to have many more signs than any other business. What they did for our shopping-center theater back then, they can surely do now for our historic theater downtown. And, if they honestly want the Garfield Center to thrive, they will.
GOLD – The letter board signs permitted as a special exception for C1 theater(s) are too limited to market the shows that are coming up next. By allowing this theater to operate with seven (7) signs beyond what the Town’s Sign Regulations allow, our Town Leaders are “testifying” they know this theater needs these seven (7) prohibited signs to market their upcoming shows. For internal reasons, they don’t want to share that understanding with the deciders and public.
GOLD – The Chester 5’s poster cases are only used to inform those who are headed into the theater. How do we know that? There are no stores to attract pedestrians over to the poster-case side of the theater’s ticketing booth. It is only the moviegoers who can see these signs. Theaters need signage to market their upcoming events especially to the folks who are coming to a current show.
GOLD – It is doubtful the Zoning Administrator realized his omissions of fact would so greatly mislead the Planning Commission. However, the only fix for such unfair treatment is a redo of the Garfield’s hearing. Down the road, we can all look back at this incident and say it teaches us of why government has an overarching duty to maintain a level playing field, on which all private interests can compete fairly, and their proposals be scrutinized on their merits, so our community’s best initiatives will prevail.
GOLD – The Chester 5 is operating with ten signs installed, but the only one that is effective is the name of the business. For theaters, “effective” means good at communicating information which will attract a crowd to come see the show. The letter boards allowed by Chestertown’s Sign Regulations are not effective because all they can do is spell out the show’s name. There is no way they can tell what it’s about, and in any case, the letter boards allowed the Chester 5 are too small to be easily read.
Likewise, their posters are too small to be easily read, perhaps because they are only being allowed as violations of the sign regulations “we haven’t noticed”. The Chester 5 is in great need of signage that can effectively market its offerings. Until it gets that it will suffer, and its suffering is a drag on every other business nearby. Theaters can be a powerful draw, but not without marketing prowess.
GOLD – Our Sign Regulations for theaters need a total overhaul, and by an independent committee which includes business owners, designers and preservationists, with a representative of the town’s regulatory interests acting as advisory staff.
The Grit
By “Grit” I don’t so much mean the improper behavior itself, but rather how such behavior gets into the gears of business to disrupt our marketplace competitiveness. If we understand how this grit is damaging us, we can act to avoid it. Here is what our look at the Chester 5 can have taught us:
Grit – When a local government doesn’t publish its rules, its officers are free to administer as they see fit. Outsiders can not tell if they are being treated justly. No complaint can be filed. No argument advanced that I should be allowed the same as the other fellow. The process of adjusting regulations to emerging business realities grinds to a halt, because no one can know what is true.
Grit – A business can never be sure that it will not lose what has been illicitly allowed. For example, a new Zoning Administrator may suddenly crack down. If we are told we can erect signs we know are prohibited, it is prudent to put up smaller and cheaper ones even if more expansive signage could do a much better job of attracting customers. We don’t want to call attention to our sign violations. Uncertainty is always a drag on business investment.
Grit – More problematic, when any government official allows a business to ignore an ordinance, that official, as a broker of privileges, gains power over the business owner. The business owner cannot thereafter share with other government leaders what sorts of regulatory freedom his business truly needs to thrive, without at the same time confessing to having colluded to acquire what is prohibited. As is the case for the Garfield Center, the business truth cannot not reach the deciders, they decide in ignorance, and that is bad for business.
Grit -When officials do not openly share with the citizen commissioners all that is relevant to a decision that the Commissioners must make, staff are putting a fat finger on the scales of justice to achieve an outcome which a fuller consideration of the truth might not justify. Capitalism and democracy both require fair and open competition if we are to benefit as a community, and not just the insiders.
Grit -Given that the Zoning Administrator’s report to the Planning Commission 1) is a published attachment to their meeting minutes; 2) was not shared with any of the parties in advance; 3) was scheduled by the Planning Commission to be given only after the Garfield Center had presented their proposals; 4) provides the Planning Commission with incomplete (and therefore misleading) quotations of the Historic Resources goals in our Comprehensive Plan; 5) which the Planning Commission’s motion to deny relies upon as a prime reason for denial, the Town Council must now offer the Garfield Center a re-do hearing before the Planning Commission, if the Town Council wants to avoid the appearance of operating a kangaroo court.
On top of that, the Town’s permitting process has already cost the Garfield Center tens of thousands of dollars – funds which this non-profit could otherwise have put into programs which nurture our community and stimulate our historic marketplace.
Going Forward
Are our town officials going to throw out this Gold and generate more Grit just to simplify their political lives, as they watch our marketplaces loose competitiveness? Or are they leaders willing to help us go forward, willing to create a thoughtful process to take up the challenges of understanding what our businesses truly need, and of managing emerging sign technology as we inevitably must if we are ever going to reap its benefits? How they decide could set Chestertown in a pattern that will last decades. Are we a can-do community ready and willing to collaboratively meet the many challenges sure to come our way?
Joan Cramer says
Not an easy piece to read, but it is kind of funny. One of the most popular bars in Sausalito, California, was the No-Name, which never had a sign and which was always packed. You could take down the sign at Evergrain and we wouldn’t even notice — the croissants and the coffee and the ambiance are that good. And you could put all the signs in the world on a theater and if the movies are not of the best quality, the place is a little grimy and the snacks substandard, people are going to, more often than not, go elsewhere, if they can. Offer people something that nourishes their souls and they will come. If they don’t, you might question, not how you’re selling it, but what you’re trying to feed them.
Keith Thompson says
I think you’re missing the bigger picture…any community is going to have an example of a few gathering places like the Evergrain because you’re always going to have a few talented and hard-working people connected enough with the community to invest in it. However, if the town’s ordinances and zoning are not allowed to change to reflect the economic changes in the community or the changing time, you’re limiting the ability or the interest of others to invest in the community. I think Doug Rae has been a tremendous asset for Chestertown, but the town needs to attract at least another twenty people like him since they can’t clone him.
Stephan Sonn says
There is the subtle abstraction called ambiance. Somebody put a wedge between the colonial town
and the trappings of theater life which has always spoken to innovation in art form as inherent.
We had a chance to become a showcase as in blending the two. WE could have been a destination point.
What we have is the result of working at cross purposes.
John L. Seidel says
You’re not missing the bigger picture at all, Joan – you hit the nail on the head! And does anyone seriously drive up Rt. 213 to see what’s showing at the Chester 5? I think most folks look in the paper or online…the signs aren’t why the theater “fails to thrive,” it’s the small market it serves.
Keith Thompson says
So in other words, having listings in the newspaper or on the internet is sufficient for marketing a theater? Hmm, what if a potential customer doesn’t read the local newspaper? What if the potential customer doesn’t regularly go online? You’re saying there’s no value in reaching someone who may be buying something at JBK?, getting computer service at Atlantek (which may be why they’re not on the internet), getting gas at Highs, or grabbing a quick bite to eat at McDonald’s? Shouldn’t the decision on whether or not signs are effective be with the business owner?
Also, why is being in a small market being used as an excuse for struggling business? It’s a self-fulfilling prophesy in that if you automatically limit your marketplace, you’re going to have a difficult time investing in the community. Washington College doesn’t view Kent and Queen Anne’s counties as it’s marketplace, as it attracts students from around the country. Other communities (especially Middletown) market Chestertown as a part of it’s market, so why can’t Chestertown market itself outside of the town or county limits and give people a reason to come here? Or even, why can’t Chestertown offer the same things that other communities have that will keep residents here rather than going elsewhere? It’s impossible for the town to think small and have a vibrant economy.
Peter Newlin says
You are right, John, in recognizing that we are indeed a small marketplace, and that makes efficacious advertising all the more important, because in a small market each business needs a larger share of the pie to thrive. Government regulations that unnecessarily restrict communication with patrons reflect an anti-business attitude,. For example, when it is obvious to the enforcement official that the Chester 5 needs seven (7) more signs to inform patrons about the current and up-coming shows, but he does not inform the deciders that the Sign Regulations they have passed are out of whack with reality, that is about as anti-business as a government can get.
We need to change our Town’s attitude from unwillingness to hear from our businesses, to required to respectfully listen, and that change should include required to respectfully listen to the appeals of the citizens of our residential neighborhoods, too.
Hopefully, a mayoral candidate will come forth to champion just such an agenda of reforms.
Stephan Sonn says
Peter
Your comments are so profound
that they reach many levels of thought,
Several of those who post here appreciate the quality
But honestly speaking, your message is lost on the crowd.
But we need you in this world.
As for the Garfield sign
It failed on diplomacy and education
But mostly on town bigotry.
Kate Wright says
There are good reasons for Chestertown to embrace the emerging electronic sign technology given the powers it has to stimulate business, but there are also good reasons to consider restricting it.
Why should we believe that this statement is true? Because Peter Newlin so. I don’t think so! Why should be believe someone who has an economic insensitive to believe as he does. Where is the impartial statement? In stating that he feels the Garfield is interested in having will stimulate business he gives no statement from an impartial expert source. Therefore how can we be influenced at all by his argument when we don’t know if his first statement is true? Everything that he says after his first statement depends on us believing his first statement is true. I feel that everything after his first statement should be viewed with a skeptical eye. Does he feel he is dealing with fools? Hopefully this is not a true statement. I believe that the people of Chestertown are wiser than to believe a person who has an economic interest behind his agreement
Peter Newlin says
Immediately after the sentenence you quote, Kate, the essay is clear: “but this essay is not about their merits or liabilities, and not about how we can control them.” As to the facts, please see my first post of 16AUGUST below.
Rome Oneil says
Mr. Newlin must be a student of Bill Clinton because his op ed rambles on and on. I believe a LED sign would not meet his needs to get essential information across to the public. He is under the delusion that the LED is a panacea for any business. Mr. Newlin makes it sound like in 1996 there was a conspiracy to hide critical information and succeeding Councils and staff kept the ‘secret’. Judge Bowman’s decision would have to be reversed too. Maybe all the money the Garfield spent (and it sounds like more will be spent) on a lost cause would be better spent on worthwhile projects to improve its financial position. Will a LED sign recoup what Mr. Newlin says was already spent?
Holly Geddes says
I don’t think Mr. Newlin “makes it sound like” the current government is trying to hide critical information. I think he says it quite clearly. Many in this town think that enforcement of the codes and regulations is not handled in an equitable fashion. Mr. Sonn says essentially the same thing when he ends his piece with, “As for the Garfield sign, it failed on diplomacy and education. But mostly on town bigotry.”
Keith Thompson says
I agree!
Stephan Sonn says
LED has become a catch all branding that the natives just love to use
because as they get to portray it as a violation of how they brand the town
in their image and understanding of living in an anti urban mode.
Led is simply a process that fits in the spirit as tailored, without intrusion.
But this town has a petrified pillory for every carpetbagger issue they invent.
Tom Schreppler says
We are an information society. Increasingly, all of our personal decisions regarding investment and purchasing require greater amounts of information. Attempts to maintain a word of mouth economy, or an economy based on local knowledge of vendors and products offered will lead to greater and greater loss of our underlying economic base. To use an example cited by an earlier commenter, if Evergrain’s business was based on a new product coming out weekly while simultaneously discontinuing a product on the shelf (no matter how popular, as the movie business must do), it is unlikely that it could remain in business if it could not effectively and cost-effectively keep the public informed of the changes. Boutique retail must both deliver product and information. While Mr Newlin may have an ax to grind, he offers up a very important issue for consideration. Yesterday’s economy and today’s economy have very different needs. Failure to address those needs in an open and transparent fashion, allowing for input by the businesses which must meet those needs, will result in decreasing economic activity. Does this town want to continue its path toward increasing representation by service and hospitality with simultaneous loss of retail and production? A two-legged stool may not offer the economic stability needed for vibrant economic stability.
Holly Geddes says
This is a very smart and well considered assessment. This town seems to be adverse to and afraid of promotion in any and all forms. Signs are a small portion of the promotion process. But it is essential. We can not rely on word of mouth, especially if we want to attract visitors.
Stephan Sonn says
Very mayoral.
Stephan Sonn says
Hermit town is not an oxymoron.
J Rose says
i dont think in this information age, anyone drives by the chester five to see from the road what is playing when they can look it up from their home or even in their car.
Stephan Sonn says
Not true for impulse shoppers who live on the fly and find
the facade attracting them to an unplanned event.
Mike Hunt says
Overheard at the Imperial: “Let’s just have two signs…” (one on each side of town presumably): “Welcome to Chestertown. The Answer Is No.” I agree. We’re going to no, no, no, this town to death.
Steve Payne says
I agree that signage is very important. Regal Cinemas usually has freestanding signage up on the road. But I would also point out that the C-Town 5 letterboards and posters are located directly in front of the North entrance to the shopping center and there is decent traffic there. There’s even a stop sign.
joel brandes says
As someone who resides on the Queen Anne’s side of the river, I might be intruding in a family dispute. However, we, on this side, not only share the Chestertown name, but a love for the town. Business’ was established in the town by people who should have known the law and the historic nature of Chestertown. Agreed, signs are cheaper methods of advertising, but they are not the only way. Isn’t it strange that some business enterprises seem to thrive with the existing sign regulations. Could it be that they are providing a product or services that customers want? I am reminded of the mechanic who blames his inferior work on his tools. Chestertown is not Middletown, nor from what I see, does it wish to be. One of the primary things I learned over many years in marketing was to ascertain if there is sufficient demand for your product or service before opening shop.
Keith Thompson says
It’s one thing to open business knowing the regulations and historic nature of the town, but when the enforcement of those regulation or protection of the historic town nature is enforced on an arbitrary basis; it is very difficult to know what you can or cannot do.
joel brandes says
Kieth:
I think a distinction was probably made between what is in the historical district and that which is not. Those that believe a sign would make the difference if the business does not have an adequate customer base will only toss good money after bad. You wouldn’t open a pork store in an orthodox Jewish or Muslim neighborhood regardless of how large a sign is permitted.
Stephan Sonn says
Garfield is not a shop seeking retail customers,
It is a cultural icon complex seeking recognition
in a manner of an aesthetic entertainment mission.
Artistry in sign use informs and entertains by design.
This is not a bean counters decision or expertise.
Non profit is another dimension altogether.
joel brandes says
Exchange patron for customer. It would seem we have a shortage of patrons of the arts. Awake all ye dreamers. Just because you believe everyone should be as appreciative of the arts as yourself, doesn’t make it so. This is Chestertown. It is not a huge metropolis. Within a few days the majority of folks are aware of what is happening. Just try walking naked thru town, you will find everyone knows of your birthmark.
Keith Thompson says
If the distinction is the Historic District, then the Garfield Center’s LED sign fits into the neighborhood as well as the i-Sign does.
Peter Newlin says
Would the I-Sign be a better citizen in town if our Mayor And Council hadn’t given it a waiver on Historic District Commission approval?
Pete Buxtun says
Joel I, Ifind I… Agree… With you… And… It feels… Good?
Stephan Sonn says
So much for astute analysis.
Peter Brocker says
Way to throw the Chester 5 under the bus. By pointing out potential violations you are putting them in a bad position, not something any business around here needs. It seems that their location shouldn’t really have the same limitations as a historic theatre in the heart of the historic district. Their signage doesn’t exactly bring down the tone on the strip mall.
Pete Buxtun says
Well said, the new Ace hardware banner tied to the front of the building is probably against code as well. While we are at it, mcDonalds has MUCH more area on its sign, it has lit poster style advert boards inside! Gasp! I’m pretty sure I saw someone at Luisas parked taking up two spots once too! Get Em!
Come on people, this is apples to oranges, a strip mall to our beloved downtown. Don’t be misled. These are not the signs you’re looking for…
Stephan Sonn says
Well Pete Buxtun it seems the chickens are at home roost.
Headline!
SACRED DOWNTOWN SAVED FROM
ABUSIVE THEATER DESIGN FACTOR
joel brandes says
Has anyone noticed that there are no signs in Fountain Park promoting either the farmers market or music in the park? Strange how both seem to be doing well.
Keith Thompson says
So why is town councilwoman Linda Kuiper working on getting highway signs to promote the Farmer’s Market like Centreville does?
Stephan Sonn says
As a street for cars to travel,
locals don’t need to have street signs.
Everybody important knows exactly
where High Street it located
Visitors be damned,
Think of the lower budget the town will have without street signs.
Wisdom from the desk of
The Street Keeper
MBTroup says
Joel – I get your drift for the most part. And no I don’t think you are infringing, being on the QA side. Certainly the Acme takes your dollar bills much the same as they do mine. But I’ll ask the following: What constitutes doing well? Could it be a relative term? If it is relative, then can it be said that sensible changes to the sign ordinance transforms the idea of “doing well” into more of an absolute term?
Jason Price says
We actually spoke with the town and received permission for the temporary Ace sign. A new permanent sign will be erected in early September. As everyone is saying on this forum, it is hard to advertise your business without the proper signage.
Stephan Sonn says
Lets see what we have learned here by the previous comments.
Shopping center decor being commercial, the sign law does not matter.
Harm may be caused to the movie house by faulting selective law enforcement.
but not to the Garfield effort.
Any LED sign is too trashy for the historical district however tasteful the presentation mode.
but that might not be true in other places in the world.
There is their Chestertown and there is a viable but still quaint version that will never emerge.
That a playhouse is hardly different from a dry cleaner in presentation and economics.
That the barbarians are not at the gates, they live here already.
joel brandes says
Should anyone wish to better understand why some business succeeds and other fail, I recommend two books.
1) IN SEARCH OF EXCELLENCE by Peters and Waterman
2) CASES IN CONSUMER BEHAVIOR by Martha McEnally
Marketing principals remain the same, whether it be in sports, politics, medicine, theater, shoe repair or what have you. Too often people rely on their circle of friends for advice. That would be fine if your circle of friends consisted of marketing experts. That, sadly, is seldom the case. It is more likely that your friends think exactly as you do and if your wrong, so are they.
Stephan Sonn says
As the power structure of this town and the retrograde culture of this town combine to obstruct the Garfield effort will be dwarfed.
Certainly there will not be a regional draw Let alone day trips from the more affluent Western Shore. No Visitors no foreign ideas.
Now I will make a prediction that is strictly business.
The present non-formula will gradually reinvent Chestertown
as a Gay Mecca.And that may be good business.
Certainly there is a quiet history here that supports the premise.
My experience with gay people is that they are self starters, wary of prejudice
and always contribute to the community at large.
Who knows who will be living in the houses on Water Street
less than a generation from now.
So attrition may do what commission cannot.
Stephan Sonn says
And by the way a theater for the arts is not marketed like a dry cleaners.
joel brandes says
Please give us the benefit of your wisdom and from whence it came. Regale us with tales of your marketing expertise. inform we ignorant people of the successful business plans you wrote. Inspire us to change Chestertown into the utopia of Middletown. I have no love for the elected officials of the town, but they were elected, were you?
joel brandes says
Periodically, by state mandate, the municipalities within Kent County as well as the county itself, produce a comprehensive land use plan. They use three basic powers to control land use, the master plan, zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations. Customarily, citizen topic committees produce recommendations to the local planning commissions, which in turn gives a recommended plan to the elected officials. Having participated in forming the Queen Anne’s county plan, I know there is very little that is not covered. From this, a reasonable person would conclude the resultant plan reflects the desires of the majority of the citizens residing within its boundaries.
There exists a zoning board of appeals with the power to grant exceptions. Everything must pass scrutiny by the state planning commission and be in alignment with the states smart growth policy. Of course the democratic process permits people to work for changes, if they so desire. To my knowledge Chestertown and Kent county are little changed from the time of the civil war. I question why anyone knowing this would choose to live here if they thought this was so reprehensible.
Stephan Sonn says
It is highly unlikely that a majority
was against modern signs.
Just the usual suspects.
The majority could care less.
joel brandes says
The way a representative government works is that citizens authorize the elected officials to act on their behalf. Mob rule is not our way of life. The process allows for the Garfield to appeal being denied a sign, even if that means going to court. By taking the issue to the street (not literally) it disrespects the democratic process. I suggest you consider putting your money where your mouth is. Make a generous contribution to the Garfield to fund an appeal.
Stephan Sonn says
Your point is overplayed and misses the political and cultural realities realities.
joel brandes says
Is it democracy that is overplayed? Did I miss your cultural mandate? Is it simply that a dictatorship is preferable to politics? Forgive me as I am not as intelligent as you. Therefore, I need clarification of where your coming from. By that I don’t mean Miami or that you attended the U.
Stephan Sonn says
The colonial culture is not prone to
larger urban economic thinking
because it is rooted in commodities .
Peter Newlin says
As the author, I have to agree some of the responses above seem to miss “the political and cultural realities.” Early on Ms. Wright objects because this essay does not quote experts. Mr. Brandes and others are seeking to fill that void, but I think we can agree those who are running the Chester 5 know their own marketplace much better than outside experts.
A theater is not a bakery or a shoe store which we go to because we know what they are always offering. Theaters change their offerings weekly and even more frequently than that. If their signage isn’t communicating effectively, there is nothing immediate to attract our attendance.
The Chester 5’s owners must make their struggling business viable, and to do so they have installed 7 more signs that Chestertown’s Sign Regulations allow – a fact, not an opinion. They have put their own capital at risk because they know they need these signs to attract patrons to their current and future shows. It is hubris to think we ordinary citizens know better. And that’s true for our citizen Planning Commissioners, too.
Similarly, we must acknowledge the fact that by ignoring these sign violations, the town officials involved are also “testifying” they too believe this shopping center theater truly needs these unauthorized signs. But is an official who allows violations honest enough to tell our deciders he has done so after they have enacted unrealistic Sign Regulations which he promoted? In the 17 years since the creation of the Chester 5’s special exception, there are no minutes of his ever having done so.
Failure to disclose crucial information is one way the opponents of a proposal can manipulate democracy. He who filters the evidence, controls the outcome. Our citizen “Planning” Commissioners are left blind to business realities, and Chestertown’s methods of “cooperating with business” are also preventing our elected deciders from recognizing our theaters’ real needs for signage.
So it is that the Planning Commission does not know, when it is hearing the Garfield’s proposal, that our shopping center theater also needs changes in Chestertown’s Sign Regulations, even if only to allow this theater what it has already installed. What happens to the Garfield Center is collateral damage. The Planning Commission has been rendered unable to understand the Garfield’s predicament because it has been led to totally misapprehend the other theater’s reality. Staff has not told them that in 1996 our Town Council created a special exception to allow the other (shopping center) theater five more signs than anyone else, not to mention the 7 prohibited signs not “noticed”. Grounds for a mistrial?
Of course the Planning Commission denies the Garfield’s proposal. They think what is good enough for the shopping center theater (the letter boards) must be good enough for a theater downtown.
Chestertown’s officials who have been throwing “the Chester 5 under the bus” for last 17 years, and they show no sign of wanting that to change. I, for one, want our town’s deciders fully and publically informed. I want an honest hearing of the evidence of Chester 5’s needs. (We need that before the Planning Commission can know enough to even consider the Garfield Center’s proposal, what with it involving new technology and all.) I want government that maintains a level playing field on which our business truths are routinely and respectfully heard. I want government which is has learned to be skillful at helping us solve our problems collaboratively. Above all, I want us to be a community which respects its citizens, and respects its businesses and respects its neighborhoods.
Honest and open officials is where we must start. No quantity of quoting experts or telling us how democracy operates theoretically can fix such dysfunctional government. We need to elect leaders willing to do that – leaders with vision of how we can help our marketplaces thrive, and leaders with the courage to rein in the unethical government practices disrupting our businesses. How are we to recognize these qualities in our leaders? They will not be those, in the election coming up, who are parroting pro-business placebos. They will be the ones laying out an agenda for reform.
Is there anyone who can do so on your radar?
joel brandes says
I think as far as the economic welfare of the town is concerned, the sign is much ado about nothing. While it would benefit the Garfield if it could add 50 patrons a week it would do little to improve things like job creation. On the other hand, if we could attract hundreds of visitors to the town a significant number would gravitate to the Garfield seeking entertainment. An LED sign is not a cure for what ails the town. Neither will it inhibit visitors from coming to town.
The town needs to put people on High street, with money to spend.
joel brandes says
Peter:
You make an interesting point which I had overlooked. By changing the offering weekly, the task of marketing is near impossible without extensive advertising. The sign being only one ingredient and, in my opinion, a minor one. People have to be at the theater to see it. The scarcity of people strolling on High Street does not bode well for that. It has been many years since I purchased advertising and therefore don’t know the current cost per impression of media advertising. I don’t know even if the Garfield sold out every performance what their advertising budget could be.
I reiterate, The town could remedy this, for all enterprises, by attracting visitors.
Peter Newlin says
One fact worth considering: the people who are coming to the current show are the people who by nature are more likely to come out ofor another show. that is why all theaters market their upcoming shows intensely to people in proximity to the theater, both inside and outside the premises.
joel brandes says
Peter:
Isn’t there another complication? I would think different shows would attract different audiences. Perhaps I am injecting my own preferences, but I enjoy comedy and would not attend drama’s. As I have aged I would rather stay home and read a good book. That, as I see it, is the problem with relying on the local market. Too many of the locals are not interested in theater, or can’t afford it. This leaves you with a small percentage of a small market. In my working life advertising reported to me. I learned that to attract the most people from afar multiple choices did best. In the case of Chestertown, the historic district and the college with all that can be featured within it are a killer draw.
Peter Newlin says
Many people don’t know this, Mr. Brandes, but at a meeting last October the Downtown Chestertown Association debated the Garfield’s proposals for new signage, and afterward took a vote. Twenty five out of twenty five of these business owners voted in support of the Garfield’s proposals – unanimous.
DCA sent a letter to our Town Council asking them to please work with the Garfield Center to help them acquire adequate signage: “We believe” it states, “that the marquee and [programmable] sign are appropriate for an historic theater downtown. We believe that our theatre in Chestertown’s historic district is unique in its need for signage. Theaters need signs to attract patrons and than sponsors…
DCA’s letter continues: “As a tax exempt 501c-3 organization, the Garfield needs our help to be financially viable and sustainable. The Garfield is an economic driver in downtown Chestertown. A successful Garfield Center will contribute to the success of downtown Chestertown.”
I’m sure we agree, when every one of these business takes a stand in support of a business proposition, it isn’t very likely they are all wrong.
And are you aware that both of the contiguous neighborhoods have circulated petitions in support of the Garfield’s proposals, and forwarded those to the Town Council? If these most affected residents are not fearful of this new technology, who is? The Historic District Commission has approved, and there are no petitions in opposition.
It isn’t that anyone believes any sign is a panacea for prosperity, rather many of us believe if we were to have the cooperation of our town government, we can help our businesses and neighborhoods thrive. If the Chester 5 can better communicate its offerings, will that not bring more folks to that part of town? And aren’t more people most likely also more customers for everyone else? The same applies for the Garfield. In my forty years in business here I’ve learned the hard way, we are a delicate economy. Every little thing we can do to help ourselves counts.
One would think the town officials who are responsible for the mismanagement of the Chester 5’s sign restrictions would want to make amends, but what they are pushing a categorical rejection of any electronic sign anywhere in town, including inside the businesses’ premises if within 6 feet of a display window.
The Mayor will be conducting a hearing of this blanket prohibition of emerging technology this coming Monday at 7 PM, but the Planning Commission’s recommendation for such a one-size-fit-all prohibition was only gotten by withholding the truth of how the Chester 5 is suffering despite the special exception the Town Council carved out for them 17 years ago, and is now saying could never do for the Garfield Center, not to mention the Planning Commission has no expertise in Historic Preservation what so ever, unless of course we trust the withholder of evidence. Even the five-more-signs-than-anyone-else have proven inadequate, but here again that truth was withheld from the deciders, but we can expect their decision will be touted nevertheless.
Somebody ought to declare a mistrial.
joel brandes says
Peter:
I am happy to learn there is a large measure of sanity in Chestertown. My own experience with the mayor and town council was less than inspiring. I have no desire to rehash the past, but suffice it to say they have no compunction against fostering an illegal plan.
Stephan Sonn says
I am glad you told it like it is because it will have impact.
Amazing how the will of the people and the success of the town economy
are thwarted by a few bad leaders and a mob mentality.
I had no idea you were so well prepared.
joel brandes says
What you call a mob is more likely a small group of influential people who don’t give a hoot for the welfare (nothing to do with govt. handouts) of anyone else.
joel brandes says
If I might be granted some leeway to present an opinion and some advice. It is foolish to assume anything about people. For some reason, unknown to me, we have a tendency to place people in a neat little box and place a label upon it. I would be a liar if I didn’t admit guilt to doing that myself. Most people, I have encountered are far too complex to be dismissed with a label. It is also counterproductive to resort to name calling or using snide remarks to put people down. It only hardens opposition against you. A free and civil exchange of ideas can produce common ground.
Thank you for reading this with an open mind.
Stephan Sonn says
How can anyone who aledges to understand the importance of communications in the service, retail or entertainment business actually take a position against relevant visuals.
Beats me!
joel brandes says
One last attempt. It takes more than a sign (though a sign is important) to bring people to any commercial enterprise. It’s like putting on a nice jacket without putting on your pants. Your not dressed up unless you have the complete outfit.
Keith Thompson says
If the LED sign at the Garfield Center leads to 50 additional patrons a week, that’s 50 potential new customers for downtown Chestertown businesses. That’s 200 additional patrons a month and 2,600 additional patrons a year (about half the town’s population). Get that kind of activity on High Street and you’ll likely see a far more businesses opening downtown.
joel brandes says
That Keith is spot on. By thinking small the results are sure to be small. By attracting just 100 new faces a day, an infusion of over $23 million annually can be injected into the C-town economy. I never did learn how to figure the multiplier effect, but know it is large.
Stephan Sonn says
Peter
I wish I could be more encouraging.
This place is packaged chaos.
Plato could not find a better cave.
Greek forum there is not.
I always liked the view from the bridge
From that place
Holly Geddes says
Peter’s last two paragraphs truly resonate with me. We need new, responsive and open leadership in Chestertown that understands, among other things, the importance of promotion to any business or venture.
The salient facts are these:
1. Promotion is important. It includes advertising, branding, signage, press releases, word-of-mouth and others. It can never be just one of these.
2. Signs are there to promote businesses, events, places and ideas.
3. Theaters signs are a special case that have always been brightly lighted and even flashy.
4. Many in this town do not understand the connection between promotion and good business practices. Only a few organizations fully use promotion. Even the town government does not always have an up-to-date web page.
5. As technology changes,so do promotion techniques, including signs. LED lights may well be the only type on the market in 5 to 7 years.
6. The town government needs to become up-to-date on this issue. This will take some organized planning. NO is not a useful strategy.
7. The Historic District Commission, which is not liberal in allowing changes, has agreed to a supervised trial of the Garfield Center’s sign.
8. The Downtown Chestertown Association of merchants has asked for the sign.
9. The local residents have asked for the sign in a petition. (On the 100 block of Queen Street, all but one of those contacted asked for the change.)
10. No one is supporting the needed changes that would help the Chester 5 movie theater. (It would be a good idea for them to get this support from someone. This would boost business at the north end of town.) I think a call to support a business is hardly “throwing them under the bus”, by the way.
The current administration has not shown any expertise in the field of promotion. They seem to avoid it like the plague. Yet they hope that visitors will make the town viable. They don’t see the disconnect between the two previous sentences.
I have thrown my hat into the ring for the mayoral election precisely to support and promote the businesses and enterprises of Chestertown. It is part of my plan to revitalize this town into a functional place for locals as well as an attractive space for visitors. We need leadership that is responsive, respectful, cooperative, thoughtful and caring of all the citizens of Chestertown. Chestertown needs: NEW LEADERSHIP, NOW.
joel brandes says
Bless you Holly. You have presented an outline for a plan. At least a starting point. If the town fails to plan for success, it is sure to never achieve it.
Stephan Sonn says
Nice platform Holly
The The Garfield could be an economic anchor.
May be even the source of foot traffic
Stephan Sonn says
That is the most sensible thing you have ever said
except for your implied disdain of art for art’s sake.
Stephan Sonn says
The reference to sensible ‘Spot On ” for Fletcher.
Often I agree with Fletcher but this is the first time
I found any merit in a Brandes comment.
I doubt if this will become a habit
joel brandes says
Sonn:
Candidly I am revolted by the thought of agreeing with you. Assuredly you would be an obstacle to my desire to assist the town in any manner.
joel brandes says
Permit me to offer an analogy to describe what I see as the obstacle to economic growth. A person has a cabin on a lake. In the cause of protecting the environment, that person denies a cabin to anyone else. It’s as simple as, I’ve got mine and the heck with you. I advise against raising it to the level of a cultural difference or protection of the colonial past. Those are excuses not reasons.
d lamotte says
Curious. Personally, I think NIMBYism is an important aspect of activism. If one does not look after an area, who will? If the lake you mention
is not “grown” in a manner that keeps it desirable, what good is it to anyone or everyone?
Give people here some credit. The constant sniping towards those in local government seems to be all the rage. No wonder decent people
do not want to get involves…it appears to be a thankless thing to do.
joel brandes says
What if I had a propeller, would that make me an airplane? What good is a town, if its residents can no longer find jobs because its commercial endeavors can’t supply them? What good are elected officials who by favoring a select group deny to the majority the right to support themselves? It is entirely possible to maintain the towns historic past while improving the life of those who live here. It requires some competent leadership that looks beyond the end of their noses. As you imply, the best people seem to avoid running for office. By sniping at the current group are people saying this is not the best we deserve?
Keith Thompson says
NIMBY’s can also be destructive, especially if they move into a small rural area expecting to get the same amenities: quality schools, quality hospitals, quality EMS, and quality infrastructure (water, sewer, electric, internet, etc.) while limiting the ability of the community to grow in order to financially afford improving the amenities.
joel brandes says
Keith:
That’s something that has often puzzled me. I have seen it in the five states I have resided in. People move seeking a better life and then try to change their new choice into the one they fled. I spent two years searching for Chestertown, starting in Florida and working up the coast. I am here by free choice and the only change I wish to see is more success for those who reside here.
d lamotte says
I agree. Who would not want those who reside here to have success? And who lives here that is not by free choice?
No area is every thing to all, however.
Peter Newlin says
A really important point, Joel, and nicely put!
I see the same character flaw in myself, and have struggle to constrain it.
Alex Smolens says
170-88 Subsection E – “Temporary, non-illuminated signs in show windows.”
If you take the definition of “Show Window” to be some kind of metal or plexi-glass frame (for the purpose of “showing” something), what they’re doing is kosher, and doesn’t require a permit. They change every 30 days (if not more often). Again, seems to be one of those ambiguities, and subject to interpretation. Also, having the store next to them – Chester Five does a heck of a clip in the summer.
https://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e291/Lithium542/2013-08-18_16-15-11_915_zps472da6ba.jpg
Stephan Sonn says
Alex. I like your style…but
Even the refined theater art marque
at Garfield gives off minimal light.
The prohibitionists will latch on to that.
While at the same time they know nothing
about how gentile to the eye LED can be.
The answer to ignorance is education.
But ignorance here has cult status.
Stephan Sonn says
Sorry that would be genteel not gentile.